M.E. Bathul Fathima vs The Commissioner Madhavaram Municipality

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the notice dated 3.2.2011, by which the respondent has demanded property tax from the petitioner for the assessment years 2000 to 2011 by issuing a final notice, failing which threatened to take coercive action by bringing the property for auction.

At the time when the writ petition was entertained, a conditional interim order was granted on 15.2.2011. However, no record has been placed by the respondent to show as to whether the conditional interim order had been complied with. Be that as it may, the impugned proceedings are challenged primarily on two grounds, firstly on the ground that it is in violation of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3230 of 2006 dated 5.2.2010. The second ground of challenge is that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner in her representation dated 15.3.2010 were considered by the respondent and straightaway a summon was issued followed by the impugned final notice. Further it is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has remitted a sum of Rs. 40,840/-. The above are the grounds on which the impugned notice has been sought to be quashed.

The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 3230 of 2006 was for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the demand notice dated 19.1.2006 and to direct the respondent to initiate proceedings afresh. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit her explanation to the show cause notice within a stipulated time and thereafter the respondent was directed to pass a reasoned order. In obedience to the direction issued, the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation dated 15.3.2010 stating as to on what grounds the property tax cannot be revised. In the typed set of papers, the copy of the said representation has been filed. However, no record is being placed before this Court to show that the respondent passed a speaking order as directed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. If such order had been passed, then the petitioner could have filed an appeal before the appellate authority. But there is no record to show that any speaking order was passed and straightaway the respondent has issued the impugned notice.

Hence, for the above reasons, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondent to pass a detailed order, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, considering the petitioner''s representation dated 15.3.2010. In the event, during the pendency of the writ petition, an order had been passed, and if the petitioner is aggrieved, it is open to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such appeal is presented, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without rejecting the same on the ground of limitation. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2011 is closed. No costs.