Madras High CourtWP/6096/2025disposed of

Srawan Kumar v. The Commissioner

2025-02-21Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 21.02.2025 Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy SRAWAN KUMAR

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. THE COMMISSIONER, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai- 600 003.

2. THE REVENUE OFFICER, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, Zone V, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai- 600 021.

4. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER-III, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, M.C.Road, Anna Punga, Chennai- 600 021.

5. THE AREA ENGINEER, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, M.C.Road, Anna Punga, Chennai- 600 021.

....

Respondents 1/6

Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 08.08.2024. For Petitioner : Ms.Rajeswari Nag for Sandeep S Shah For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan Standing Counsel (R1 to R3)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 08.08.2024.

2. Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the Respondents.

3. By consent of the parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the time of admission stage itself.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the building situated at New No.369, Old No.182, Mint Street, Park Town, Chennai. The half-yearly property tax pertaining to the aforesaid property has been increased exorbitantly by the respondents and in addition to 2/6

the property tax, the respondents 4 and 5 initiated water and sewerage tax demands based on erroneous tax assessments. He further submitted that without addressing the petitioner's appeals or objections, the respondents imposed additional surcharges and penalties, further pressurizing the petitioner with threats of service disconnection and distrait warrants. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16972 of 2009 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 08.09.2009 directed the respondents to maintain old tax rate until the appeal was resolved, but the respondents failed to comply with the directions of this Court. Therefore, again the petitioner filed W.P.No.7396 of 2017 before this Court vide order dated 15.06.

2017 directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's objections, conduct a hearing and keep all proceedings in abeyance until a final order is passed, but the respondents have not complied with the aforesaid directions also. Hence, the petitioner filed a representation dated 08.08.2024, to the 1st respondent requesting a resolution in line with the court's directions. Since, the same did not evoke any response, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking for the aforesaid relief.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 has stated no objection for the respondents to dispose of the representation of the 3/6

petitioner.

6. In view of the limited scope of relief sought for in this writ petition and also in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the 1st respondent concerned to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 08.08.2024 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and other parties concerned and thereafter communicate the decision taken to the petitioner.

7. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

21.02.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No arr 4/6