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