Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Bombay High Court

Shrikrishna Gaushala Trust, Bajaj ... vs The State Of Maharashtra & Another on 26 October, 2016

Author: Vasanti A. Naik

Bench: Vasanti A Naik

    WP 5842/05                                                       1                       Judgment

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                                                 
                            WRIT PETITION No. 5842/2005




                                                                         
    Shrikrushna Gaushala Trust, Bajaj Nagar, Tumsar,
    through its Joint Secretary,




                                                                        
    Shri Dongarsidas Laxminarayan Saraf,
    aged about 65 years, occupation private service,
    R/o Durga Colony, Durga Nagar, Tumsar, 
    Dist. Bhandara.                                                                      PETITIONER

                                          .....VERSUS.....




                                                       
    1.
                               
           The State of Maharashtra,
           through its Department of Urban Development,
           Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
                              
    2.     The Municipal Council, Tumsar,
           through its Chief Officer, Tumsar,
           District Bhandara.                                                            RESPONDENTS
      

                                      None for the petitioner.
           Shri A.V. Palshikar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.
   



                                          CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A   NAIK  AND
                                                       KUM. INDIRA  JAIN, JJ.        





                                                     :      26  TH         OCTOBER,     2016.
                                           DATE       
                                                                  




    ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner had sought a declaration that the action on the part of the respondent no.2 in recovering the property tax from the petitioner is contrary to law.

::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:55:39 :::

WP 5842/05 2 Judgment

2. Though we had issued Rule in the writ petition by the order dated 09.03.2006, the prayer for interim relief was rejected. In this view of the matter, the petitioner must have paid the taxes during the pendency of the petition. Since the taxes must have been paid, the petitioner must not be interested in prosecuting the writ petition. That appears to be the reason for the non-appearance of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.



                  JUDGE      
                               ig                                   JUDGE
                             
    APTE
      
   






     ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016                                 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:55:39 :::