← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/2584/2012allowed

The Commissioner v. Mr.K.Thajraj

2017-07-24Honourable Ms.Justice V.M.Velumani7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.07.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2584 to 2586 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2012 The Commissioner Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore ...

Petitioner in all CRPs Vs.

Smt.Ambigavathi ... Respondent in CRP NPD No.2584/2012 Mr.K.Thajraj Mr.K.Aswinkumar Jain Mr.K.Kuwatchand Jain ...

Respondent in CRP NPD No.2585/2012 V.R.Suriyanarayanan ...

Respondent in CRP NPD No.2586/2012 COMMON PRAYER : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 31.03.2011 made in I.A.Nos.810 of 2002 in CMACFR No.14204 of 2002, 893 of 2002 in CMACFR No.15684 of 2002 and 185 of 2003 in CMACFR No.2677 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivakumar in all CRPs

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan in CRP NPD 2584 for R1 of 2012 Mr.C.Veeraraghavan for R2 & R3 For Respondents : No appearance in CRP NPD 2585 and 2486 of 2012 COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 31.03.2011 made in I.A.Nos.810 of 2002 in CMACFR No.14204 of 2002, 893 of 2002 in CMACFR No.15684 of 2002 and 185 of 2003 in CMACFR No.2677 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner / Coimbatore Corporation filed CMA CFR Nos.14204 of 2002, 15684 of 2002 and CMACFR No.2677 of 2003 alongwith I.A.Nos.810 of 2002, 893 of 2002 and 185 of 2003 to condone the delay of 649 days, 351 days and 168 days in filing the appeal against the order of Tax Appellate Tribunal in TAT Nos.342 of 2000, 233 of 2000 and 448 of 2000 dated 26.09.2000, 02.08.2001 & 23.11.2000 respectively.

3. According to the petitioner Corporation, it has revised the property tax to the entire area from 01.04.1993 onwards. The respondent in all the revision petitions challenged the said order. The Tax Appellate Tribunal, in the appeal filed by the respondents in TAT Nos.342 of 2000, 233 of 2000 and 448 of 2000, vide orders dated 26.09.2000, 02.08.2001 & 23.11.2000, reduced the property tax, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner Corporation. The copy of the order must be furnished within 10 days from the date of the order of the Tribunal but the petitioner received the copy of the orders only on 22.11.2000, 29.10.2001 and 09.08.2002 respectively. The officials who received the copy of the order forwarded the same to the concerned zone for further action. Due to complying with the procedure and getting orders from the higher authorities, there was delay in filing the appeal. For the above reasons, the petitioner Corporation prayed for condoning the delay of 649 days, 351 days and 168 days respectively in filing the appeals.

4. The respondent filed counter and submitted that the petitioner has not given valid reason for condoning the delay. The

reasons given by the petitioner Corporation for condoning the delay was considered in similar matters filed by the various Government Organisations and rejected by the Court. The affidavit filed by the petitioner is not as per Rule and the person who signed the affidavit is not the competent person to sign the same. The learned Judge, considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit and judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, dismissed all the applications by common judgment dated 31.03.2011.

5. Against the order of dismissal dated 31.03.2011 passed in I.A.Nos.810 of 2002 in CMACFR No.14204 of 2002, 893 of 2002 in CMACFR No.15684 of 2002 and 185 of 2003 in CMACFR No.2677 of 2003 respectively, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that property tax was revised by the petitioner Corporation for the entire area from

01.04.1993. Number of persons challenged the revision of tax. In the present case, the Tax Appellate Tribunal (TAT), without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, passed orders. The copy of the order was also not served on the petitioner. On the other hand, the respondent opposed the said application only on technical grounds. The learned Judge, having accepted the technical objections raised by the respondent, failed to see that, in the interest of justice and equity, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to put forth his case on merits. The application for condoning the delay must be considered elaborately.

8. It is well settled law that application for condoning the delay must be considered liberally and the length of delay cannot be a criteria. The Court must see whether the parties have given acceptable and valid reasons and the intention of the parties are bonafide and not mala-fide. The parties should not be shut down at the threshold itself and must be given opportunity to put forth their case on merits. In the present case, the issue before the Appellate Authority is whether the revision of property tax by the petitioner is proper and whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in reducing the property tax revised by the petitioner. Courts can

take judicial note of the fact that the property tax is the main source of income for any local body to implement the welfare schemes for the general public.

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has revised property tax from 01.04.1993 for the entire area of the petitioner Corporation. In view of the above said undisputed fact, the reason given by the petitioner is acceptable and valid. For the above reason, the order dated 31.03.2011 made in I.A.Nos.810 of 2002 in CMACFR No.14204 of 2002, 893 of 2002 in CMACFR No.15684 of 2002 and 185 of 2003 in CMACFR No.2677 of 2003 is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.

10. In the result, all Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The learned Judge is directed to number the CMA CFRs, if otherwise in order and hear and dispose of the appeal, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of numbering the same.

24.07.2017 rgr To

The Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.

V.M.VELUMANI, J.

rgr CRP (NPD) Nos.2584 to 2586 of 2012 24.07.2017