Municipal Law — Revision of property tax — Procedural challenge by writ petitioner in the guise of PIL — Locus and maintainability — Scope of judicial review — Doctrine of judicial restraint. A writ petition filed as a public interest litigation by a corporator challenging the municipal corporation's resolution revising property tax rates for 2017–18 to 2021–22 was held to be an impermissible attempt to substitute judicial scrutiny for administrative policy. The court emphasised that municipal tax policy and revenue measures are matters of executive/administrative prerogative, and judicial interference is permissible only where there is illegality, perverse decision-making, or patent non-compliance with statutory procedure. Where petitioner did not demonstrate authorization to represent public interest, and statutory remedies existed (appeal under Section 406, Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949), the High Court erred in re‑examining the merits of the tax revision. The Division Bench’s order quashing the municipal resolutions was set aside; appeals allowed. Judicial review was confined to examining whether the procedure was followed and whether the decision was arbitrary or illegal; absent such infirmity, courts must defer to policy decisions of municipal bodies.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Akola Municipal Corporation (AMC) revised property tax assessment methodology and rates for the five‑year period 2017–18 to 2021–22 by resolutions dated 3 April 2017 and modified 19 August 2017.
The revision followed a door‑to‑door survey and engagement of a technical consultant (tender floated; Sthapatya Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. awarded work) to prepare an integrated GIS‑based database and assessment software, addressing a long gap in reassessments since circa 2001.
Dr. Zishan Hussain (a corporator), filed PIL No. 42 of 2018 in the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) seeking quashing of the revision on grounds of procedural irregularity and arbitrariness; he did not claim to represent the entire citizenry and had statutory remedies under Section 406 MMA.
The High Court allowed the PIL, quashed the municipal resolutions and orders, and directed relief in favour of the writ petitioner; AMC appealed to this Court.
ISSUES
Whether the writ petition filed as a PIL by a corporator was maintainable to challenge AMC’s tax revision, given the existence of statutory remedies and absence of public‑authorisation.
Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reassessing the merits of AMC’s policy decision increasing property tax rates, rather than confining review to procedural legality.
Whether the municipal corporation’s act of revising taxes after a long interregnum was per se arbitrary or unreasonable, warranting judicial intervention.
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
A. Locus, Maintainability and Public Interest Litigation
• The petition was filed as a PIL but the petitioner was a corporator who did not assert authorization to represent the public at large. The Court treated the filing as raising primarily a private grievance masked as PIL. Where a petitioner lacks proper locus or authority and statutory remedies are available, courts must scrutinise maintainability. Section 406 MMA offers an efficacious remedy against tax assessments/revisions.
• The Court observed the possibility that the writ petition may have been motivated by business or personal interest, particularly given challenge to the tender and award to the consultant.
B. Scope of Judicial Review — Policy vs. Procedure
• The jurisprudence of this Court establishes that economic and fiscal policy decisions (including tax fixation) lie within the domain of the legislature/executive/municipal authority; courts must exercise restraint and cannot substitute their view of policy or economics where decision‑making is within statutory authority and the procedure followed is lawful (citations: Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India; BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India; Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India).
• Judicial interference in PILs is warranted only where there is demonstrable dereliction of constitutional or statutory obligations, perversity, or manifest illegality. Courts should limit review to legality and reasonableness of the process adopted — not to the substantive wisdom of the policy.
C. Application to the Present Case
• AMC had not revised property taxation since circa 2001; a robust revenue‑generation need existed to fund municipal functions. AMC procured expert assistance, carried out survey and valuation exercises, and formulated a resolution to revise ratable/expected letting values for the 2017–22 period.
• The petitioner did not adduce material showing the procedure adopted was ex facie arbitrary, perverse, or contravened statutory provisions. The High Court, however, substituted its own view and conducted a merits‑based reappraisal of the policy choice — beyond permissible judicial review.
• Given the admitted existence of statutory remedies and the limited grievance confined to procedure, the appropriate course was to confine review to whether statutory mandates were ignored in a manner that vitiates the exercise. No such showing was made.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
The appeals are allowed.
The judgment of the High Court dated 9 October 2019 in PIL No. 42 of 2018 and the Review order dated 24 January 2020 are set aside.
The Court held that: (i) the writ petition filed as a PIL by the corporator was not a proper vehicle to displace the statutory remedies and to review economic policy; (ii) the High Court exceeded the scope of judicial review by reassessing the wisdom of AMC’s tax revision; and (iii) absent material demonstrating procedural illegality, perversity or arbitrariness, the municipal decision must stand.
No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
No comments:
Post a Comment