Common Cause vs Commissioner, Municipal ...
1991 Latest Caselaw 459 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) This writ petition is by way of public interest litigation. The petitioner claiming to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order directing the respondents Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the New Delhi Municipal Committee to withhold all further actions on the notices issued by the authorities to various property owners in Delhi for enhancement of the rateable value of their properties. Then there are certain consequential reliefs. Delhi Municipal Corporation (M.C.D.) is constituted under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and the New Delhi Municipal Committee (N.D.M.C.) under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, as extended to Delhi.

(2) For the purpose of decision of this petition we may refer only to notices issued under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'the Act). It is stated M.C.D. issued as many as over a lakh of notices under Section 126 of the Act. On filing of this writ petition notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued and at the same time while issuing notices a Bench of this Court also extended the time for filing objections to the notices uptil 31st July, 1991, which time under the notices was to expire on 31st May, 1991. It was also mentioned in the interim order that no final decision shall be taken by the M.C.D. in respect of the subject notices. M.C.D. has since filed its answer to show cause notice as well as its application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of the stay order. The affidavits in support of the answer to show cause notice as well as application are by Mr. V.C. Chaturvedi, Assessor and Collector, M.C.D.

(3) The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was amended by the Amending Act 57 of 1988.. Clause (c) of Section 3 of this Act as amended states that nothing in this Act shall apply to any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees. The concept of standard rent as hithertofore, understood under the Delhi Rent Control Act is, therefore, no longer applicable to such premises. Constitutional validity of the amendment has been upheld by this Court. Under Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act rateable value of a building is to be assessed and under sub-Section (1) the rateable value of any land or building assessable to property taxes shall be annual rent at which such land or building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. Then there are certain deductions. Then there is a proviso to this sub-Section which says that with respect to any land or building the standard rent of which has been fixed under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, the rateable value thereof shall not exceed the annual amount of the standard rent so fixed. The necessary consequence of the amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act would prima facie be that the premises which are outside the purview of that Act, its rateable value might have to be revised. For the amendment of the assessment list M.C.D. is to issue notices under Section 126 of the Act where it seeks to increase the rateable value and this can only be done after notice to the owner concerned and after considering his objections, if any, to the proposal mentioned in the notice. An appeal under the Act against any assessment, if objected to, is maintainable under Section 169 before the District Judge. One of the conditions of right of this appeal is that the amount, if any, in dispute in the appeal has to be deposited by the appellant in the office of the M.C.D. This is clause (b) of Section 172 of the Act. Constitutional validity of this provision has also been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in Shyami Kishore v. M.C.D. , where this Court said that deposit of tax was a condition precedent for hearing or determination of the appeal. Section 126 of the Act has also been amended by the Amending Act 10 of 1989 by inserting sub-sections (3) and (4), and these are as under :-

"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to sub-Section (1) and sub-Section (2), before making any amendment to the assessment list for the years commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, and the 1st day of April, 1989, under sub-Section (1), the Commissioner shall give to any person affected by the amendment, notice of not less than one month at any time before the 1st day of April, 1991, that he propose to make the amendment and consider any objections which may be made by such person. (4) No amendment under sub-Section (1) shall be made in the assessment list in relation to- (a) any year prior to the year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, after the 31st day of March, 1991; (b) the year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any other year thereafter, the expiry of three years from the end of the year in which the notice is given under sub-Section (2) or sub-Section (3), as the case may be :

PROVIDED that nothing contained in this sub-Section shall apply to a case where the Commissioner has to amend the assessment list in consequence of or to give effect to any" direction or order of any Court. Explanation-In computing the period referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b), any period or periods during which the proceedings for the assessment were held up on account of 'any stay or injunction by the order of any Court, or the period of any delay attributable to the person to whom the notice has been given under sub-Section (2) or sub-Section (3), as the case may be, shall be extended."

(4) There is every presumption of the validity of the enactment of the amendment thereto.

(5) With the petition, the petitioner has filed copies of as many as 40 notices issued under Section 126 of the Act where the existing rateable value is sought to be revised on varying reasons. It is contended that proper reasons have not been spelled out in all these notices. Mr. V.C. Chaturvedi, Assessor and Collector, with his counter-affidavit has filed an annexure (Annexure R-3) giving the circumstances why it led to the M.C.D. issue all these 40 notices filed with the writ petition. It is not that all the notices are members of the petitioner. Only one person Mr. B.N. Bhagat, resident of A-15, West End, New Delhi, was shown to be a member of the petitioner society. If we refer to the notice under Section 126 issued to him by way of specimen, he is owner of the property bearing No. A-15,West End, New Delhi. His existing rateable value is Rs. 24.680.00 and proposed Rs. 7,02,000.00 . Mr. Chaturvedi has said that notice under Section 131 of the Act was served on Mr. Bhagat on 11.2.1991 requesting him to furnished relevant details which were not furnished and on enquiries it was reported that a portion of the house has been occupied by one Mr. Vikram Lal of Eicher Tractors on a monthly rent of Rs. 40,000.00 and that newly constructed portion was lying vacant. It was said, therefore, that on the basis of the actual tent received, the rent of the newly constructed portion was estimated at Rs. 25,000.00 per month and total monthly rent, therefore, aggregated to Rs. 65.000.00 per month and on that basis the annual rateable value came to Rs. 7,02,000.00 . Mr. Bhagat. to our mind, would file objections to the proposed rateable value and matter could be considered by the appropriate authority under the Act and proper rateable value determined. If dissatisfied with that order Mr. Bhagat could file an appeal under the Act or perhaps a writ petition, if he could say that he was unable to pay the tax as demanded of him. We, however, need not say anything on this subject, both on facts and legal position as it might prejudice the case of either of the parties while proceedings are taken under the Act. We, however, fail to understand how such a writ petition is at all maintainable when remedies are provided under the Act and each notices might have different objections to raise to the proposed rateable value. Reply to Annexure R-3 of the counter-affidavit of Mr. Chaturvedi by the petitioner Is vague and it is merely stated that the rateable value is sought to be increased without giving "adequate reasons". We do not agree. It was submitted by the respondents that because of the stay order granted in this writ petition the whole working of the office of the Assessor and Collector has been brought to a grinding halt and a spanner has been put in the lawful working of the department under the Act. It cannot be disputed that a duty is cast on the M.C.D. to levy proper tax as per law and it has power to amend the list, if circumstances so require. We find, the writ petition to be misconceived one. We must also quote the dictum of Justice Holmes of the U.S. Supreme Court when he said "it must be remembered that legislators are the ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the Courts". Further it is not that by filing such a writ petition any cause of the poor or down-trodden is sought to be advanced. The properties in respect of which notices were issued and copies of which have been placed on record are situated in posh colonies of Delhi being Vasant Vihar, West End, Greater Kailash, New Friends Colony, etc., where the values of the property are invariably running into lakhs of rupees. These property owners can well protect their rights and petitioner need not have felt concerned to file a writ petition on their behalf and, thus, disturb the working of the M.C.D.

(6) It may also be noticed that in another writ petition filed by the petitioner respecting house tax in Delhi (C.W. 20001/88) a Bench of this Court said that judicial and quasi judicial matters should not be challenged by way of public interest litigation in a writ petition. In spite of this, it appears, there if no stopping the petitioner and it has chosen to file yet another writ petition. Mr. H.D. Shourie appearing in person for the petitioner, however, said that though he had been agitating for the cause of the property owners, at the same time he had been stressing upon them to pay their property taxes properly and in time.

(7) We find this writ petition to be of no merit and would dismiss the same in liming. Interim order granted earlier shall stand vacated except to the extent that time for filing objections to the notices shall remain extended uptil 31st July, 1991.