Lad Devi vs The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and The Assistant Revenue Officer, Revenue Department

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the impugned notices, dated 25.10.2010 and 29.12.2010, had

been issued by the second Respondent asking the Petitioner to pay the property tax, inspite of the Petitioner having already paid the same.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents had submitted that the Petitioner could file her objections, if any, before the first

Respondent, within a time frame, as fixed by this Court. Thereafter, the first Respondent would consider the objections raised by the Petitioner and

pass appropriate orders thereon. Till final orders are passed by the first Respondent, based on the objections raised by the Petitioner, no action

would be initiated against the Petitioner, pursuant to the impugned notices issued by the second Respondent.

In view of the said submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, it is made clear that it would be open to

the Petitioner to file her objections to the impugned notices, dated 25.10.2010 and 29.12.2010, issued by the second Respondent, within 15 days

from today. On receipt of such objections the first Respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in

accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that till final orders are passed by the first Respondent, no

action could be initiated against the Petitioner, pursuant to the impugned notices issued by the second Respondent.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.