Madras High Court
Ponnamaravathi Traders' Association vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12/11/2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition (MD) No.8989 of 2009
1. Ponnamaravathi Traders' Association
rep. by its Secretary
K.A.Karuppiah
Amarakandan Vadakkarai
Ponnamaravathi, Pudukottai District
2. M.S.Murugappan
s/o. M.Shanmugam Chettiar
Ambalavanar Mill
Anna Salai, Pon. Pudupatti Post
Pudukottai District .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply (Election Department)
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009
2. The District Collector
Pudukottai District
3. The Executive Officer
Ponnamaravathi Selection Grade Panchayat
Pudukottai District
4. The President
Ponnamaravathi Selection Grade Panchayat
Pudukottai District .. Respondents
Prayer
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent 3 and 4 herein to
reconsider the decision taken under resolution Nos.110, dated 28.7.2008, and
130, dated 18.9.2008, as per resolution No.2, dated 29.1.2009, of the fourth
respondent herein.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.AL.Gandhimathi
^For Respondents... Mr.Pala Ramasamy
Special Government Pleader
for R1 and R2
Mr.D.Gandhiraj
Government Advocate for R3 and R4
:ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to reconsider the decision taken under Resolution Nos.110, dated 28.7.2008, and 130, dated 18.9.2008, as per Resolution No.2, dated 29.1.2009, of the fourth respondent.
2. The first petitioner is an Association formed with the primary object of working for the welfare of the traders and the public at large, especially, with a view to improve the trade in Ponnamaravathi area. The second petitioner is the present President of the petitioner Association. The first petitioner Association has 227 members. However, the present writ petition has been filed only on behalf of 64 members of the first petitioner Association, who are affected by the commissions and omissions of the respondents in the matter of revision of the property tax.
3. It has been stated that the first respondent has proposed to direct the local authorities to re-assess the property tax in all the areas in the State, from 1.4.2008 and it had laid down guidelines for the purpose of re-assessment, under G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008. Under the said Government order, the first respondent had fixed the guidelines to reassess the property tax and water and sewerage tax, in respect of all the local bodies and had also directed that the local bodies can reassess the tax in accordance with the revenue and the expenses of the respective panchayats and municipalities. However, it had been directed that the maximum increase in respect of the residential buildings shall not be more than 25% and that it shall not be more than 100% in respect of the industrial buildings.
4. It had also been stated that the increase shall not be more than 150% in respect of the commercial buildings. As such, the first respondent had delegated the powers to re-assess the property tax and water and sewerage charges to the respective local authorities, as per the guidelines fixed under the Government order. It is clear that only the maximum limit has been prescribed by the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008.
5. In the meantime, the third respondent Panchayat, on 20.6.2008, had discussed the issue of re-assessment of the properties and other taxes by referring to the letter, dated 12.2.2008, of the Commissioner of panchayats, Chennai. As such, under Resolution No.83, dated 20.6.2008, the third respondent panchayat had resolved to fix the minimum tax as referred to, under the letter of the Government. However, the third respondent panchayat on a perusal of the Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008, had once again held a meeting, on 28.7.2008, by placing both the letters, as well as the Government order. By a resolution No.130, dated 18.9.2008, the council of the third respondent panchayat had approved the Government order and had decided that the property tax shall be fixed at the maximum limit, as referred to under the said Government order, dated 23.6.2008. As such, the third respondent panchayat had decided to reassess the property tax and thereby had increased it by 150% for all the properties covered under the ponnamaravathi panchayat. When the said reassessment had been made public, there were many protest meetings requesting the third respondent panchayat to reconsider the decision of the panchayat.
6. Pursuant to the said request, the third respondent panchayat, by its resolution No.2, dated 29.1.2009, had decided to reconsider the earlier decision, taking into consideration the objections raised by the public. However, the third respondent panchayat, without reconsidering the earlier resolution, had, by a letter, dated 10.2.2009, informed the second respondent that the reassessment of the property tax had been made only in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008. However, due to the protests by the public including the bandh held on 26.12.2008, the third respondent panchayat had, resolved to reconsider its earlier decision and therefore, it had requested the second respondent to issue suitable orders to reassess the taxes. Since there was no response from the second respondent, the third respondent panchayat had informed the second respondent by its letter, dated 6.7.2009, that in spite of its letter, dated 10.2.2009, there was no approval from the first and second respondents for reconsidering the earlier decision of the third respondent panchayat.
7. On 23.4.2009, there was an inspection in the office of the District Collector, Pudukottai, in respect of the collection of taxes in the respective panchayats. Such an inspection had also been made at the office of the Ponnamaravathi panchayat and the Executive Officer of the Ponnamaravathi panchayat was directed to reassess the taxes and to start collecting the same without any default. However, due to the continuous protests from the public, the third respondent had once again requested the second respondent for suitable orders to reconsider its earlier decision. In spite of such a request having been made, no approval had been given, either by the first respondent or by the second respondent. Hence, the third respondent panchayat could not reconsider its earlier decision to increase the taxes and therefore, individual notices had been issued demanding the property tax at the increased rates. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been submitted that the assessment of the tax is an individual assessment and therefore, the present writ petition filed by the Ponnamaravathi Traders' Association is not maintainable in law. The Ponnamaravathi Town panchayat provides basic amenities to the public by laying roads, constructing drainages, erecting street lights, providing water supply and other sanitary facilities. Due to the increased cost of the construction materials, electricity charges, etc., the local bodies were not in a position to meet the regular expenses. Therefore, there was the need for increase in the taxes being collected by the Panchayat. In such circumstances, a Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008, had been issued giving the guidelines for fixing the percentage of taxes to be collected by the local bodies. Based on the guidelines issued in the Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008 and in view of the directions issued, in G.O.Ms.No.150, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 12.11.2007, and the proceedings of the Director of Town Panchayat, in Na.Ka.No.335/05E2, dated 12.2.2008, the Ponnamaravathi Town panchayat had passed the resolution No.83, on 20.6.2008. Even though certain representations had been received from certain segments of the people of the Ponnamaravathi Town panchayat, it was found that nearly 50% of the persons assessed to pay the increased tax had complied with the demands made by the Panchayat. The claims made by the petitioner have no legal basis and therefore, they are liable to be rejected.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the Government order issued by the first respondent, in G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008, had only fixed the guidelines and the powers had been delegated to the local authorities to reassess the property tax, water and sewerage tax at the maximum permissible limits. However, the third respondent Panchayat, without considering the revenue and expenses of the panchayat and without making its own assessment, had taken a decision to increase the property tax by 150%, without applying its mind, properly. In spite of repeated protests held by the public and the members of the petitioner Association, no decision had been taken, till date, to reconsider the said decision. The third respondent Panchayat has been waiting for the approval of the first and the second respondents, even though it is neither necessary nor mandatory. However, without reconsidering the issue, the third respondent Panchayat had issued individual notices demanding payment of the increased property tax under the threat of coercive action.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that by Resolution No.2, dated 29.1.2009, it had been resolved to reconsider the proposal to increase the property tax. However, the said resolution had not been given effect to. The learned counsel had also stated that neither in the Resolutions of the panchayat, dated 20.6.2008 and 28.7.2008, nor in the Resolution, dated 18.9.2008, any specific percentage of tax had been fixed. Even though the panchayat had resolved to reconsider its earlier decision to increase the tax, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008, it had not done so, in spite of the protests raised from various sections of the society. In fact, the town panchayat council had not met to finally fix the percentage of the property tax. Therefore, the increase of property tax is arbitrary, improper and invalid in the eye of law.
11. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that nearly 50% of the people of the ponnamaravathi town panchayat had, already, paid the increased tax, as per the resolutions passed by the Panchayat council, in view of G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008. He had also pointed out that most of the panchayats in Pudukottai and other Districts had passed the resolution, in accordance with the guidelines given under G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008.
12. He had also submitted that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are incorrect and erroneous, since a specific resolution had been passed to accept the maximum limit of tax proposed under the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008.
13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in the present writ petition.
14. The petitioners have not been in a position to show that the resolution passed by the Panchayat council of Ponnamaravathi Town panchayat, approving and accepting the guidelines for fixing the percentage of taxes to be levied under G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008, is arbitrary and invalid. When most of the panchayats in Pudukottai and other Districts had accepted the increased taxes to be reasonable, no proper reasons have been shown by the petitioners to challenge the resolutions passed by the panchayat council of Ponnamaravathi Town panchayat fixing higher rates for payment of taxes. Fixation of higher rates of taxes had been justified in the various local bodies due to the escalation of costs in their activities of providing the various amenities for the welfare of the people of the respective areas. It has also been seen that merely 50% of the persons assessed for the payment of the increased taxes have already complied with the demands made by the Ponnamaravathi Town panchayat.
15. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2009 are closed.
lan To:
1. The Secretary to Government The State of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election Department) Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009
2. The District Collector Pudukottai District
3. The Executive Officer Ponnamaravathi Selection Grade Panchayat Pudukottai District
4. The President Ponnamaravathi Selection Grade Panchayat Pudukottai District