Backbay Premises Coop. Society v. Municipal Corporation of Greater

Mr.Kishore Jain with Mr.Goradia and Ms.Nisha Parmar for petitioners Ms.T.Puranik for B.M.C. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 26th September 2011. P.C.: 1] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek following relief:-

(a) For a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari and mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings in respect of the bill (Exh.G) received by the petitioner on 26th October 2010, making demand for payment of Rs.5,51,44,200/- for the period 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011 towards Municipal Taxes for petitioner's property being Jolly Maker Chamber No.2, situate at 225, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 and after being satisfied that the demand contained therein is astronomically high; the same does not set out any basis or foundation, the break up or the basis whereon such astronomical figure is worked out is not given and no basis for increase in Municipal Taxes manifold 2 is made; the authority under which the demand is made for payment of taxes with retrospective effect, and despite repeated requests and demands, and notwithstanding the petitioner, even invoking the provisions of RTI Act and despite payment of fees having been made in connection with the RTI application as demanded by respondent No.2 as a condition for furnishing details in response thereto, and the respondents having deliberately and consciously failed and avoided to furnish the details, data, particulars and records in connection with the said provisional bill, be pleased to quash and set aside the same, and the respondents be restrained, prohibited and prevented in any manner acting upon, enforcing or implementing the demand contained in the said bill and/or taking any steps in pursuance or furtherance thereof

2] From a perusal of this lengthy request made in this prayer clause, it would be apparent that the petition involves highly disputed question of fact inasmuch as in the garb of seeking details or the break up unit wise what the petitioner society seeks to assail is the demand and valuation of property tax.

As is well settled, these are disputed questions and when there is an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of appeal to the Court of Small Causes, which is already been filed, I do not see how any relief can be granted in this petition. 3 3] The letters to which my attention has been invited, by themselves would make it apparent that what is challenged is the levy, assessment and valuation of the property tax. The demand, according to the petitioner is astronomical and excessive. The Corporation has increased the property tax but on what basis, is what is really sought and not what is being argued that unit wise details be given so as to facilitate recovery from individual flat owners/ occupants. 4] It is clear that after having filed an appeal for the years for which the property taxes have been levied, assessed and collected, what the petitioner is really aggrieved is the continuing demand on the basis of that rateable value, which itself is in issue.

Once the petitioner is clear that its remedy is to file an appeal and in which all contentions, including absence of basis for the levy or the refusal to give details, unit wise could be the subject matter, then all the more, this petition is not the remedy of the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. No costs.

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)