The Bombay High Court Refused to entertain a property tax appeal filed under section 406 of the MMC Act.
Facts
Petitioner claimed to be a federation of co-operative housing societies constituted for welfare of the residents of Kharghar Node which is an area in Navi Mumbai. It was averred that petitioner is looking after the welfare of its Member Cooperative Housing Societies. The other Petitioner is described to be a resident of Kharghar, and as an office bearer of a co-operative housing society, namely, one ‘Stuti Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.’ The petition is affirmed by one Commander Siddheshwar Hira Kalawat who has described himself as General Secretary of petitioner.
This petition concerns levy of municipal taxes in relation to only one area of the PMC namely the “Kharghar Node”. The infrastructure of the Kharghar Node was developed and maintained by the City Industrial Development Corporation which was constituted as a “New Town Development Authority”, for the area constituting the twin city, namely, “Navi Mumbai”. Until the formation of the PMC, CIDCO was looking after the infrastructure requirements of the Kharghar Node.
The challenge as mounted in the petition is namely to the property tax bills, issued by the PMC to the co-operative societies who are stated to be the members of petitioner.
Submissions
Senior Advocate Kumbhakoni, appearing for the PMC, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, as also, on the petition being entertained by the Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that as the challenge is merely to the bills issued by the PMC demanding property taxes, from the members of petitioner, they have an effective and efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal as provided under the statute, namely, under the provisions of Section 406 of the MMC Act.
Mr. Joshi, counsel for the petitioners, contended that levy of tax itself is illegal for the reason that there is a breach of principles of natural justice in the PMC levying taxes, subject matter of demand under the impugned bills.
He submitted that PMC has acted in breach of the taxation rules as contained in Chapter VIII under the “Taxation Rules” appended to the MMC Act and more particularly, Rule 30 which provides for property taxes to be payable half-yearly in advance.
Decision
The division bench of Justice R.N. Laddha and Justice G. S. Kulkarni said that if a litigant has suffered no legal injury then certainly such litigant cannot be a person who is aggrieved.
The bench observed that any assessment leading to individual bills being issued to any member society of petitioner, necessarily is on an independent consideration depending upon the nature of property of each of such cooperative societies, and depending upon various factors of different amounts.
The court stated that it cannot be a blanket common consideration in issuance of bills for different properties nor it is so pleaded in the writ petition.
The court held that the petition is neither maintainable as framed, nor the same can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The bench also observed that when the Court is called upon to exercise writ jurisdiction, the Court cannot be oblivious to the consequences which would be brought about, in entertaining petitions of the nature, as in hand.
The court said that it is always the discretion of the Court whether to entertain a writ petition and exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Case title: Kharghar Co-op. Housing Societies Federation Ltd. through General Secretary and Anr. v/s Municipal Commissioner, Panvel Municipal Corporation and Anr.
Citation: Writ Petition No. 8586 Of 2021
