SUBHASHBHAI R SHAH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Prachchhak, learned A.G.P. waives service of rule for respondent nos.1 and 3 and Mr.Dhaval Vyas for respondent no.2. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing on today.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the Respondent Municipality revised the taxation rates and such rates of taxation were also made as subject matter of the proceedings under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipality Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Vide municipal case no.20/2004, it was held by the Collector under Section 258 of the Act that the elected body of the Municipality or the Administrator as the case may be has the power to decide the rates of taxation and ultimately as per the order dtd.31st May, 2004 the resolutions of the Municipality were approved. It appears that there is no dispute on the point that on the basis of the said resolutions which were confirmed by the Collector under Section 258 of the Act, the sanction came to be granted for revision of taxation rates by the State Government. It appears that, thereafter, there was some opposition and ultimately as per the resolution dtd. 24.8.2004 the elected body of the Municipality passed the resolution to reduce the rates of taxation subject to the approval of the State Government as required under the Act. It appears that the District Collector against the resolution no.28 dtd.24.08.2004 has exercised powers under Section 258 of the Act and has stayed the operation of the resolution passed by the Municipality. It may also be stated that together with the resolution no.28 dtd.24.08.2004, the Municipality has also passed the resolution no.39 dtd.28.04.2004 in respect of the repairing work of the toilets upto Rs.50,000/- and the said resolution is also stayed by the Collector under Section 258 of the Municipalities Act as per the order dtd.9th February, 2005. However, Mr.Raval, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not challeging the exercise of the powers under Section 258 of the Act by the Collector qua resolution no.39 dtd.28.04.2004, and, therefore, the challenge is only to the exercise of powers under Section 258 of the Act qua the resolution no.28 dtd.24.08.2004, whereby the rates of taxation are reduced.

(3.) Heard Mr.Raval for the petitioner,Mr.Vyas for the respondent party and Mr.Prachhak, learned A.G.P. for the State Authority.