Pearl Mansion Chs Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1262 Bom

Bombay High Court

Pearl Mansion Chs Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 4 February, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:5789
                                                                                                     17-wp11374-2023.doc


                              AGK
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                    WRIT PETITION NO.11374 OF 2023

                              Pearl Mansion CHS Limited                              ... Petitioner
                                         V/s.
                              The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                        ... Respondents


       ATUL
                              Mr. Sagar G. Talekar for the petitioner.
       GANESH
       KULKARNI               Ms. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3-
       Digitally signed by
       ATUL GANESH
       KULKARNI
       Date: 2026.02.04
                              State.
       17:38:21 +0530

                              Mr.   Himanshu Patil with Ms. Pooja Sursure for
                              respondent No.4.


                                                                  CORAM        : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                                  DATED        : FEBRUARY 4, 2026
                              P.C.:

1. The present writ petition has its origin in an application preferred by the respondent housing society under Section 154B- 29 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. By the said application, the society sought recovery of outstanding maintenance charges from one of its members. The claim was not confined only to routine maintenance. It also included repair cess and property tax allegedly paid by the society to the Municipal Corporation for the period from 2005 to 2018. The dispute, therefore, essentially concerns the correctness of the amount claimed and the method adopted for its computation.

2. The revisional authority, instead of mechanically accepting the figures placed by the society, thought it appropriate to

17-wp11374-2023.doc

ascertain the actual liability. For that purpose, an Auditor was appointed. The Auditor was directed to determine the precise amount payable by the member after examining the taxes levied by the Municipal Corporation and the repair cess paid by the society. While undertaking this exercise, the Auditor noticed that the society had paid repair cess at the rate of Rs.1,153 per year during the entire period from 2005 to 2018. Since this was the rate actually borne by the society, the Auditor adopted the same rate while calculating the member's share towards repair cess. This part of the calculation was thus aligned with the actual expenditure incurred by the society.

3. However, when the Auditor examined the component relating to property tax, discrepancies came to light. The society had calculated property tax uniformly at the rate of Rs.1,153 for the entire span from 2005 to 2018. The material placed before the Auditor, including municipal records and information obtained by the member under the Right to Information Act, 2005, revealed that the applicable rates were different for different periods. For the period 2005 to 2010, the property tax payable was Rs.95.25. For the period 2010 to 2015, it was Rs.823.25. It was only for the period 2015 to 2018 that the rate of Rs.1,153 became applicable. In view of this documentary position, the Auditor concluded that the society had applied an incorrect and higher rate for earlier years. He therefore recalculated the property tax component period-wise, applying the rate actually chargeable in the respective years.

17-wp11374-2023.doc

4. Upon receipt of the Auditor's report, the District Deputy Registrar examined the same. The Registrar found that the revised calculation was based on authentic records and reflected the true municipal demand. Consequently, the recovery certificate earlier issued for Rs.1,66,058 was modified. The amount was reduced to Rs.76,751 in accordance with the Auditor's recalculation. The modification was thus not arbitrary. It was the result of a scrutiny of figures supported by documentary material.

5. The Revisional Authority, while considering the challenge, relied upon the Auditor's detailed computation. The order shows that the Authority did not act on assumption. It examined the documents which were before the Auditor. It also took note of the information obtained from the Municipal Corporation under the Right to Information Act, 2005 at the instance of the member. The revisional order is founded on actual figures drawn from official records.

6. In writ jurisdiction, this Court does not reappreciate evidence as an appellate forum. Interference is warranted only if there is an error of jurisdiction, perversity, or violation of principles of natural justice. In the present case, the authorities have acted within the scope of Section 154B-29. The computation has been corrected on the basis of authentic municipal data. No material has been shown to demonstrate that the authorities exceeded their powers or ignored relevant evidence. The decision reflects application of mind and adherence to statutory framework. Hence, it cannot be said that the order suffers from any jurisdictional error.

17-wp11374-2023.doc

7. For these reasons, no ground is made out to exercise writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

8. There shall be no order as to costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)