Bombay High Court
B.G. Shirke Contruction Technology ... vs Pune Cantonment Board on 6 September, 2024
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2024:BHC-AS:36639-DB Siporex India Pvt Ltd vs. PCB
29-aswp-10077-2000+(1).doc
Sumedh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10077 OF 2023
1. M/s. Siporex India Pvt. Ltd.
A company registered under the
Companies Act 1956, having its
registered office at:
72-76, Mundhwa, Pune - 411036,
Maharashtra
2. Vijay Shirke,
Director of M/s. Siporex India Pvt. Ltd.,
having his office at: 72-76, Mundhwa,
Pune - 411036, Maharashtra ...Petitioners
~ versus ~
1. Pune Cantonment Board,
Office of the Cantonment Board,
Golibar Maidan, Shankarseth Road,
Pune - 411 001.
2. Chief Executive Office,
Pune Cantonment Board, Golibar
Maidan, Shankarseth Road, Pune -
411 001.
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2024.09.12
12:00:03
+0530 Page 1 of 11
6th September 2024
::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 00:29:32 :::
Siporex India Pvt Ltd vs. PCB
29-aswp-10077-2000+(1).doc
3. Defence Estates Officer,
Pune Circle, 16, Rajendrasinhji Road,
Camp, Pune - 411 001.
4. Union of India,
Through the Ministry of Defence,
Having its office at: 2nd Floor, Aayakar
Bhavan, M.K. Road Churchgate,
Mumbai - 400 020. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9583 OF 2023
Bharat Forge Limited,
A company incorporated and registered
under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956 and having its registered office at
Mundhwa, Pune Cantonment, Pune - 411
036, Maharashtra, India ...Petitioner
~ versus ~
1. Pune Cantonment Board,
Office of the Cantonment Board,
Golibar Maidan, Shankarseth Road,
Pune - 411 001.
2. Chief Executive Office,
Pune Cantonment Board, Golibar
Maidan, Shankarseth Road, Pune -
Page 2 of 11
6th September 2024
::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 00:29:32 :::
Siporex India Pvt Ltd vs. PCB
29-aswp-10077-2000+(1).doc
411 001.
3. State of Maharashtra through
Department of Registration and
Stamps,
office of Inspector General of
Registration and Controller of Stamps
having office at ground floor, Opp.
Vidhan Bhavan (Council Hall), New
Administrative Building, Pune-
411001. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 21454 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9583 OF 2023
Bharat Forge Limited,
A company incorporated and registered
under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956 and having its registered office at
Mundhwa, Pune Cantonment, Pune - 411
036, Maharashtra, India ...Petitioner
In the matter of:
Bharat Forge Limited,
A company incorporated and registered
under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956 and having its registered office at
Mundhwa, Pune Cantonment, Pune - 411
Page 3 of 11
6th September 2024
::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 00:29:32 :::
Siporex India Pvt Ltd vs. PCB
29-aswp-10077-2000+(1).doc
036, Maharashtra, India ...Petitioner
~ versus ~
1. Pune Cantonment Board,
Office of the Cantonment Board,
Golibar Maidan, Shankarseth Road,
Pune - 411 001.
2. Chief Executive Office,
Pune Cantonment Board, Golibar
Maidan, Shankarseth Road, Pune -
411 001.
3. State of Maharashtra through
Department of Registration and
Stamps,
office of Inspector General of
Registration and Controller of Stamps
having office at ground floor, Opp.
Vidhan Bhavan (Council Hall), New
Administrative Building, Pune-
411001.
...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10145 OF 2023
1. M/s. B. G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt
Ltd,
A company registered under the Companies Act
Page 4 of 11
6th September 2024
::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 00:29:32 :::
Siporex India Pvt Ltd vs. PCB
29-aswp-10077-2000+(1).doc
A company incorporated and registered under
the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered office at: 72-76, Mundhwa,
Pune - 411036, Maharashtra.
2. Vijay B Shirke,
Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. B. G.
Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., having
his office at: 72-76, Mundhwa, Pune - 411036,
Maharashtra ...Petitioner
~ versus ~
1. Pune Cantonment Board,
Office of the Cantonment Board,
Golibar Maidan, Shankarseth Road,
Pune - 411 001.
2. Chief Executive Office,
Pune Cantonment Board, Golibar
Maidan, Shankarseth Road, Pune -
411 001.
3. Defence Estates Officer,
Pune Circle, 16, Rajendrasinhji Road,
Camp, Pune - 411 001.
4. Union of India,
Through the Ministry of Defence,
Having its office at: 2nd Floor, Aayakar
Bhavan, M.K. Road Churchgate,
Page 5 of 11
6th September 2024
::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 00:29:32 :::
Siporex India Pvt Ltd vs. PCB
29-aswp-10077-2000+(1).doc
Mumbai - 400 020. ...Respondents
A PPEARANCES
For the Petitioner in Dr Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Senior
WP/10145/2023. Advocate, with Barne Swapini
Srinath i/b Crawford Bayley &
Co.
For the Petitioner in Dr V Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate,
WP/10077/2023. with Shailendra Kanetkar.
For the Petitioner in Mr Sachin Mahadik, with Sayali
WP/9583/2023. Phansikar i/b Mandlik &
Partners.
For the Union of India Mr C. N. Chavan.
For Respondents Nos. 2 & 3 Mr KJ Presswalla and Tushad
in WP/6924/2013. Kakalia with DJ Kakalia,
Sandeep Goyal i/b Mulla &
Mulla & Craigie Blunt &
Caroee.
For Respondents Nos. 1 & 2. Mr KJ Presswalla and Tushad
Kakalia witwh DJ Kakalia,
Sandeep Goyal i/b Mulla &
Mulla & Craigie Bllunt &
Carlos.
Page 6 of 11
6th September 2024
::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 00:29:32 :::
Siporex India Pvt Ltd vs. PCB
29-aswp-10077-2000+(1).doc
CORAM : M.S. Sonak &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATE : 6th September 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per MS Sonak J):-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioners in these Petitions have challenged the
triennial revision and the calculation of Annual Rateable Value as
mentioned in the impugned notices and the consequential
bills/demands made on the basis thereof.
3. At the outset, Mr Presswalla learned counsel for the
Cantonment Board had raised a preliminary objection to
entertaining these Petitions on the ground that the Petitioners have
an alternate and efficacious remedy of Appeal under Section 93 of
the Cantonments Act, 2006.
4. By a detailed order dated 22 August 2023, this objection
was overruled by a coordinate bench of this Court comprising
Sunil B Shukre & Rajesh Patil, JJ. The order indicates that the
impugned action was prima facie in breach of natural justice.
Therefore, one of the exceptions to the practice of not entertaining
Petitions when an alternate remedy is provided was attracted.
5. After that, on 2 January 2024, another coordinate bench (GS
Patel & Kamal Khata, JJ) made an order on 2 January 2024 by
6th September 2024
Siporex India Pvt Ltd vs. PCB
29-aswp-10077-2000+(1).doc
which the Cantonment Board was directed to give an inspection of
all materials which it proposed to rely upon in addition to the
documents in the list provided by the Petitioners in October 2023.
Further, the officer concerned of the Board was directed to give the
Petitioners an opportunity of hearing no later than 2 February
2024 and make a fresh order determining liability, if any.
6. After compliance with the directions in our order dated 2
January 2024, the concerned officer of the Cantonment Board has
made fresh orders again, determining the Annual Rateable Value
and the consequent liability.
7. By Interim Application No. 21454 of 2024 in Writ Petition
No. 9583 of 2023, the Petitioners have sought leave to amend the
Petition and challenge this fresh order determining the Annual
Rateable Value. No such applications are made in the remaining
petitions.
8. At this stage, Mr Presswalla again points out that the
Petitioners should be relegated to avail of the alternate remedy in
Appeal under Section 93 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 because
now, even the plea about the alleged failure of natural justice does
not survive.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that natural
justice was not fully complied with. They submit that this is a case
where a retrospective levy is sought to be imposed, and this,
according to them, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Cantonment
6th September 2024
Siporex India Pvt Ltd vs. PCB
29-aswp-10077-2000+(1).doc
Board. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that since
jurisdictional issues are involved, this Court must finally dispose of
the Petitions instead of relegating the Petitioners to the Appellate
Authority.
10. We have considered the rival contentions. Under our order,
the material upon which the Board relied has been furnished to
the Petitioners. Besides, certain documents demanded by the
Petitioners have even been furnished to the Petitioners. The
Petitioners were given a hearing by the concerned officer of the
Board. Therefore, at this stage, all that we can say is that this is not
a case where there was a complete breach of the principles of
natural justice or a case where the Annual Rateable Value has
been determined without sufficient compliance with the principles
of natural justice. If there are any deficiencies, the Appellate
Authority can always look into them in an Appeal under Section
93 of the Cantonments Act, 2006.
11. Regarding retrospectivity, again, this is also a matter which
can be looked into by the Appellate Authority. Mr Presswalla
contended that this plea of retrospectivity has already been
decided by this Court against the Petitioners. Mr Tulzapurkar, a
learned senior advocate, disputes this position on behalf of the
Petitioners. In any case, it is not for us to go into this issue at this
stage, mainly since we are inclined to relegate the Petitioners to the
remedy of an Appeal under Section 93 of the Cantonments Act,
2006.
6th September 2024
Siporex India Pvt Ltd vs. PCB
29-aswp-10077-2000+(1).doc
12. This Court, in the case of SGS Infratech Ltd vs. Chief
Executive Officer, Pune Cantonment Board and Ors. 1 considered
somewhat similar contentions and held that alternate remedies
provided by the statute could not be bypassed without sufficient
reasons. The reasoning in the said decision applies to these cases.
13. Accordingly, these Petitions are disposed of by relegating the
Petitioners to avail of the alternate remedy of Appeal under Section
93 of the Cantonments Act, 2006. Suppose the Petitioners institute
their Appeal within five weeks from today by complying with the
conditions prescribed in Section 96-B. In that case, such Appeals
should be heard on merits and disposed of within one year of their
institution. All parties' contentions are explicitly kept open for
consideration by the Appellate Authority.
14. Learned counsel for the Petitioners state that the amounts in
dispute will be deposited by them with the Board within four
weeks from today, i.e., on or before 4 October 2024. They,
however, submit that during the pendency of the Petitions, they
have already deposited some amounts without prejudice with the
Board. They submit that these amounts should be directed to be
adjusted. Mr Presswalla quite fairly agrees that this could be done.
Accordingly, the Petitioners would be entitled to adjust the
amounts already paid and deposit the balance amount within four
weeks from today, i.e., on or before 4 October 2024.
1 Writ Petition No. 1264 of 2012 decided on 31 July 2012.
6th September 2024
Siporex India Pvt Ltd vs. PCB
29-aswp-10077-2000+(1).doc
15. The Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of these
Appeals within one year, i.e., on or before 11 October 2025.
However, if, for some unavoidable reasons, the Appellate Authority
is unable to do so, then the Petitioners are granted liberty to apply
to the Appellate Authority for the return of the deposited amount
and its substitution with the bank guarantee. If such an
application is made, the Appellate Authority must consider the
same per the law and after hearing all the parties. By 'consider',
we mean that such an application, if made, must be disposed of
per the law.
16. These Petitions are disposed of by relegating the Petitioners
to the remedy of Appeal under Section 93 of the Cantonments Act
2006. All contentions of all parties are explicitly kept open.
(Kamal Khata, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
6th September 2024
