M/S Mansingka Industries Ltd. Through Its Managing Director P H Mansingka v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 82 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1160 OF 2012 (M/s. Mansinghka Industries Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) ---- Mr.R.F. Totla, Advocate holding for Smt. Vinaya MuleyDharurkar, Advocate, for applicant Mr. K.N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. P.P. Chavan, Advocate for respondent No.6 ---- CORAM :
T.V. NALAWADE AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 20th MARCH, 2017 ORAL ORDER :
Heard.
2.
This application is filed for review of the order dated 13th February, 2017, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1160/2012.
3.
The petitioner has approached this Court to prevent the auction of his property for recovery of the property tax from local Body/Municipal Council. The learned counsel for the review petitioner mainly submits
ra82-2017 that re-assessment of the property tax needs to be made as there is grievance with regard to fixation of ratable value. He further submits that today, under protest, the petitioner is ready to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- and hence, some relief needs to be granted and the order sought to be reviewed, needs to be recalled.
4.
In our view, we have touched every aspect of the matter while disposing of the writ petition. This Court has come to the conclusion that only to prolong the recovery of the property tax, the petitioner has played every tactic. Only when the petitioner thought that the matters are not controlable and the property will be lost, he started to take some steps. It is clear from the record that since long, the petitioner did not pay the property tax and only due to some action against him, he deposited certain amount and today also, such readiness is shown. The request made for giving directions to re-assess the property tax is again a part of tactics being played by the petitioner. The grounds given in the review application cannot be accepted for review of the order dated 13th February, 2017. In the
ra82-2017 result, the review application stands dismissed. No costs.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [T.V. NALAWADE] JUDGE JUDGE npj/ra82-2017