SADHU VASWANI CENTER (SAURASHTRA) v. RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ===================================================== SADHU VASWANI CENTER (SAURASHTRA) - Petitioner(s) Versus RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent(s) ===================================================== Appearance : MS SANGEETA PAHVA FOR M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, MR RM CHHAYA for Respondent(s) : 1, ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 20/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/478220/2008 JUDGMENT

RULE. Mr. R.M. Chhaya learned counsel waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

The petitioner by this petition, has prayed for appropriate writ to direct the respondent Corporation not to insist for payment of general tax under Section 132 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, for the plot No.162 and 163 in Ward No.23, since as per the petitioner, the building is used for school, which is wholly a charitable purpose. The petitioner by this petition has challenged the decision of July, 2008 of the Corporation, whereby exemption has been declined.

Heard Mrs. Pahva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chhaya, learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation.

Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that the impugned decision for refusal to grant exemption to the petitioner by the Commissioner of the Corporation is without recording any reason whatsoever nor it speaks for SCA/478220/2008 JUDGMENT consideration of the case as to whether the school is run on charitable basis or not. Under these circumstance, the impugned decision as such cannot be sustained.

An attempt was made by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation to contend that in the affidavit-in-reply, the reasons are mentioned and therefore, the same may be considered. As such, even if they are considered, they are not reflected in the impugned order. Further, when the decision is taken for not granting exemption, it must be with the reasons and consideration, germane to the exercise of the power. As the order is a non-speaking order, it cannot be maintained and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

In view of the above, the impugned decision refusing the exemption to the petitioner is quashed and set aside with the direction that the matter shall be reconsidered afresh by the respondent Corporation after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and appropriate decision shall be taken. SCA/478220/2008 JUDGMENT