IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY.THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10857 OF 2018 Between; Annabathina Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Late Sreenivasa Rao, aged about 58 years, Resident of Kurnool Road, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER AND Municipal Corporation of Ongole, Rep. by.. Commissioner, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent in straightaway issuing the impugned notice dated 24-03-2018 under Section 269(2) of The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 without their being any bill that too without disposing of my earlier objections, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of well settled principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of The Greater- Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and rules made thereunder and in utter violation of well settled principles of natural justice. lA NO; 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to impugned notice w dated 24-03-2018 under Section 269(2) of The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC FOR MUNC & MUNC CORPORATION The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010246362018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 10857 OF 2018 Between: Annabathina Venkata Subba Rao ...PETITIONER AND Municipal Corporation Of Ongole Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT 1.GHANTASRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: to issue an appropriate Writ or order or directionparticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in straightaway issuing the impugned notice dated 24.03.2018 under Section 269(2) of The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 without there being any bill that too without disposing of earlier petitioner’s objections, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of well settled principles of natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of The Great Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and rules made thereunder and In utter violation of well settled principles of natural justice ” The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner is the owner of the land admeasuring 306 Godhies (equivalent to 2448 sq.yards) of site abutting the bypass road, within the limits of the respondent Corporation. Initially, the petitioner has constructed a shed in the said site and the same was assessed to property tax with assessment No.103500760 and Door No.8/497 was assigned to the said premises. Thereafter, in the year 2011, the petitioner has demolished the said shed and proposed for construction of pacca RCC building. As such, he has submitted an application for grant of permission for construction of RCC roof hotel building with Cellar + Ground + three upper floors and the said application was forwarded by the respondent Corporation to the Director of Town and Country Planning for technical approval. Accordingly, the Director of Town and Country Planning granted technical approval subject to various other conditions mentioned therein. While so, as there is a change in the land use, the petitioner has submitted a revised plan for construction of a commercial 2. 3 building and the respondent Corporation has sanctioned the plan for construction of building consisting of cellar + Ground + three upper floors. In pursuance of which, the petitioner has commenced the construction of the said building, in accordance with the plan, as sanctioned by the respondent Corporation. b) While so, the respondent Corporation issued a Special Notice proposing to revise the property tax in respect of the premises No.8/497 retrospectively even for the period for which period the property tax was already paid. Challenging which, when the respondent was insisting upon the payment of the aforesaid demand, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.5947 of 2015 and a Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the said writ petition vide orders dated 13.03.2015. The operative portion of the said order reads as under; “In the event, the petitioner deposits 50% of the demanded amount within three weeks from date then the Municipal Corporation shall consider his representation in accordance with law and pass a speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing and production of all material documents. In the process fresh decision shall be taken with regard to the demand. The deposit so to be made will abide by the result of such decision. In default of depositing the amount within the time as above, it would be open for the Municipal Corporation to proceed to recover the demanded amount in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of deposit of the amount. ” c) In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1,49,007/- which in fact is 50% of the said demanded amount and also submitted his objections on 02.04.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any notice whatsoever from the respondent nor any order has been passed in pursuance of the objections raised by the petitioner. However, the 4 respondent Corporation has issued impugned notice dated 24.03.2018 under Section 269(2) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 (for short ‘the GHMC Act’) stating that an amount of Rs.7,17,633/- is due towards property tax up to March 2018 and the said tax has to be paid till date on the premises No.8/497, which in fact stands in the name of the petitioner. The said notice is under challenge on the ground that without even generating the bill for payment of the said amount, the impugned proceedings under Section 269(2) has been issued to the petitioner demanding Rs.7,17,633/- and also that the respondents through the said impugned proceedings are insisting the petitioner to pay tax for the period for which he has already paid. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel 3. appearing for the respondents. Though the writ petition pertains to the year 2018, no counter is filed by 4. the respondent Corporation till date. But, however, Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel, in support of his case stated that as the petitioner has failed to pay the property tax since the date of the occupation of the said property, the subject notice has been issued in favour of the petitioner demanding to pay Rs.7,17,633/-, which is neither illegal nor arbitrary, but. however, in pursuance of orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.5947 of 2015. As per the above facts and circumstances, it can be understood that the petitioner filed the writ petition No.5947 of/^015 challenging the demand 5. V. 4^ notice dated 16.05.2014, wherein the Municipal Corporation demanded the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,98.018/-. This Court, vide the said order, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the demanded amount within a period of three (3) weeks and on payment of the same, the respondent Corporation shall consider the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass speaking orders after giving an opportunity of hearing and production of all material documents. However, this Court has also clarified that in the said process a fresh decision shall be taken with regard to the ^ demand. It is also a fact that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 13.03.2015 the petitioner deposited 50% of the demanded amount to a tune of Rs.1,49,007/-. In spite of the same, the respondent Corporation without generating the bill as required under Section 269(2) of the Act, issued the impugned notice. even 6. For better appreciation. Section 269 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 is extracted here under: 269. (1) If the person liable for the payment of the said tax does fifteen days from the service of the 285{bill] pay the sum due, or show sufficient cause for non-payment of the same to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, and if no appeal is preferred against the said tax hereinafter provided, such sum, with all costs of the not within , as recovery, may be levied under a warrant in the form of Schedule L, or to the like effect, to be issued by the Commissioner, by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the defaulter, or if the defaulter be the occupier of any premises in respect of which a property tax is due, by distress and sale of any goods and chattels found on the said premises or, if the tax due in respect of any vehicle or animal by distress and sale of such vehicle or animal in whomsoever's ownership, possession or control, the same may be. (2) If after the service of the 286[bill] the amount of the said tax is paid but the 286 [fee for the bill] is not paid, the sum due on accountof the said fee may be levied under a warrant in the form of Schedule L^utatis mutandis to be 6 issued by the Commissioner in the same manner as if such sum were due account of the tax: on [Provided that a simple interest at the rate of two percent per mensum shall be charged in case of failure to pay property tax 288[by the end of the month of June for the first half year and by the end of December for the second half year]: Provided further that when payment of property tax is not made within the due date, the Commissioner may, after giving notice to the owner or occupier, disconnect the essential services to the premises.] As per the above section, it is clear that if a person fails to pay the bill amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said bill, then a show cause notice has to be issued to the said person. In the present case contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, even without generating the bill for payment of the amount, the impugned proceedings under Section 269 (1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 have been issued to the petitioner demanding Rs.7,17,633/-. It is also an admitted fact that challenging the similar demand notice which was issued earlier, the petitioner has filed W.P No.5947 of 2015, wherein the Municipal Corporation has demanded the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,98,018/-. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 13.03.2015 directing the petitioner herein to decide 50% of the demanded amount within a period of three (03) weeks and on payment of the same, the respondent corporation shall consider the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass speaking orders after giving an opportunity of hearing and production of material documents. But, however, the Court has clarified that in the said process a fresh decision shall be taken with regard to the demand. In pursuance of the said order dated 13.03.2015, the petitioner has deposited 7. as 7 50% of the said demand amount to a tune of Rs. 1,49,007/-. In spite of the same, the impugned notice dated 24.03.2018 was issued to the petitioner even without generating the bill as required under Section 269 (2) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 8. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned notice dated 24.03.2018. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// p" X- SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Ongole, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. One CC to Sri Ghanta Sridhar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A.S.C.Bose, SC for MUNC & MUNC Corporation. [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies. gi i HIGH COURT DATED:12/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.10857 of 2018 'x 2 6 MAR 2025 E i<5, s.v ^ . Current Section ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS