Madras High Court
Mohan vs Dharapuram Municipality on 7 December, 2023
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.A.No.3384 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.3384 of 2023
Mohan .. Appellant
Vs.
Dharapuram Municipality
Rep. by its Commissioner
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District. .. Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 08.06.2023 in W.P.No.17071 of 2023.
For the Appellant : Mr.N.Ponraj
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard Mr.N.Ponraj, learned counsel for the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The present appellant had filed W.P.No.17071 of 2023
challenging the demand notice issued by the respondent
Municipality. The writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the
present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the demand
notice was issued in May, 2023 in respect of the license fee due for
the period 2004-05 and 2009-10. The demand notice could not be
issued after such a prolonged period. It is further submitted by
learned counsel that as per Rule 317 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local
Bodies Rules, 2023 [for brevity, “the Rules of 2023”], the
respondent is required to file a suit for recovery of the license fee
and they could not have just issued notice and sought to recover
license fee as arrears of land revenue.
4. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The appellant does not dispute that he was a licensee of the
respondent and is required to pay license fee. The license was
canceled in the year 2014 on account of non-payment of license fee.
Naturally, the appellant is liable to pay license fee. The Rules of
2023 cannot be read in isolation. Rule 317 of the Rules of 2023 is
subservient to Section 116 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies
Act, 1998 [in short, “the Act of 1998”].
6. Section 116 of the Act of 1998 provides that “without
prejudice to institution of any proceedings for an offence under this
Act or for the recovery of the entire amount by way of tax, licence,
fees, costs, damages, compensation, charges, expenses, rents or
penalty or other sums which under this Act or any rule made
thereunder are due or any other amount remaining unpaid, such
amount shall be a charge on the properties of such person and shall
be recovered, as if it were an arrear of land revenue”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Sub-Rule (2) to Rule 317 of the Rules of 2023 is an
additional remedy provided to the Municipality for recovery, as if it
were arrears of land revenue. Under Section 116 of the Act of 1998
also a remedy is provided under the Act.
8. In the light of that, we do not find any error in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal, as such, stands
disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
C.M.P.No.27634 of 2023 is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
07.12.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Commissioner
Dharapuram Municipality
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(drm)
07.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
