Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Property Owners Association on 29 July, 2019
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran
1
ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.8 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17009/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-04-2019
in WP No. 2592/2013 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 29-07-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
For the parties: Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG
Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv.
Ms. Aruna Sarla, Adv.
Ms. Preeti Purandare, Adv.
Ms. Jayashree Wad, Adv.
Mr. Sidharth Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Ankur, adv.
Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv.
Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Divyang Gobind Chandiramani, Adv.
Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Mittal, Adv.
Mr. Digit Saikia, Adv.
Ms.Neha Mittal, Adv.
Ms.Mamta Sneh, Adv.
Mr. Divyang Chandiramani, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv.
Ms. Mahima C. Shroff, Adv.
Digitally signed by
INDU MARWAH
Date: 2019.08.01
12:24:31 IST
Reason:
Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv.
Mr. Anoop Kandari, Adv.
Mr. Pranaya Goyal, Adv.
2
Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv.
Mr. P.N. Gupta, Adv.
Ms.Bharti Gupta, Adv. (R-1)(Caveator)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The provisions inserted in the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1886 by virtue of Maharashtra Amendment Act 11 of 2009 were under challenge in various writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
During the pendency of the challenge, interim orders were passed on or about 29.01.2014 which were thereafter modified by subsequent order dated 24.02.2014. The operative portion of the order dated 24.02.2014, as is relevant for the present purposes, is as under:
“..
5. In the meantime the petitioners shall play municipal taxes at the pre-amended rates and also the additional tax at the rate of 50% of the differential tax between the tax payable under the old regime and now payable on the basis of capital value of the property. The petitioners will pay such amounts and the Municipal Corporation shall accept the amounts without prejudice to rights and contentions of parties.” While upholding that challenge to a limited extent, the High Court held Rules 20, 21 and 22 of the Capital Value Rules of 2010 and 2015 to be ultra vires the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1886 and said rules were struck down. The High Court also quashed and set aside the assessment notices and final bills and directed to re-determine the capital value. 3
The concluding portion of the judgment of the High Court stated as under:
“At this stage, the learned counsel for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation prays for stay of that part of the operative part of the Judgment and Order which is against the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. We stay only that part of the operative part of the Judgment and Order by which (a) Rules 20,21 and 22 of the Capital Value Rules of 2010 and 2015 are struck down, (b) special assessment notices and final bills are quashed and set aside and (c) a direction is issued to re-determine the capital value. We, however, make it clear that ad interim or interim orders which are operative till today will continue to operate till 31st August, 2019. We also make it clear that unless the stay is extended, with effect from 1st September, 2019, the operative part of the Judgment will immediately come into operation as directed.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.90 of 2016 prays for issue of certificate in accordance with Article 134-A of the Constitution of India. The same prayer is made by the learned counsel for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The prayers are rejected.” Heard Mr. K.K.Venogopal, learned Attorney General for India appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned senior advocate appearing for some of the intervenors ( who had independently filed writ petitions which petitions were also dealt with by the common judgment impugned here), Mr. P.N. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on caveat for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, learned Advocate on caveat for Central Mumbai Developments Welfare Association (Writ Petition No.2375/2016). Issue notice, returnable on 23.09.2019.
Pending further consideration, the relationship between the parties shall be governed by interim order dated 24.2.2014 passed by the High Court and more particularly by para 5 as quoted above. 4 We are conscious of the fact that there were more than 150 petitions before the High Court but special leave petition has been filed only in one matter. However, since the issues in question is common to all the matter and to go to the root of the controversy, we direct that this interim order shall apply in every single petition which was considered by the High Court. Liberty is granted to the respondents to file affidavit in reply within three weeks and rejoinder, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.
All the interested parties/respondents are at liberty to obtain copies from the learned advocate-on-record for the petitioner.
(INDU MARWAH) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER