THE T.V.R. SUBBICHETTYS FAMILY CHARITIES REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEES Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRPERUMBUDUR TOWN PANCHAYAT
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
The T.V.R. Subbichettys Family Charities Represented By Its Trustees
Executive Officer, Srperumbudur Town Panchayat
Click here to view full judgement.
K.S. Palaniswamy, J. -
(1.) THIS petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the respondent, the Executive Officer, Sriperumbudur Town Panchayat, dated 20th June, 1969.
(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of door No. 58, Gandhi Road, Sriperumbudur. It was originally assessed to house tax at Rs. 36.09 for half year. The respondent served a special notice of house tax on the petitioner on 22nd August, 1968, fixing the house tax at Rs. 360 and library cess at Rs. 10 -80, making in all Rs. 370 -80. Against this, the petitioner filed a revision to the Executive Officer within the time allowed. As he did not receive any reply he sent a reminder to the respondent on 22nd February, 1969, enclosing a copy of the revision petition already filed. The respondent returned the revision petition stating that the said petition was filed out of time. Thereupon, the petitioner by a letter dated 9th March, 1969, pointed out to the respondent that the revision had already been filed within time and that the letter dated 22nd February, 1969, was only a reminder enclosing copy of the petition already filed. Thereupon, the respondent informed the petitioner by a communication dated 18th March, 1969, that the revision petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed confirming the assessment. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the panchayat under Rule 191 of the rules framed under the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and requested for a personal hearing. On 20th June, 1969, the petitioner was informed by a communication signed by the respondent that the appeal filed by the petitioner had been rejected. It is to quash this order that this writ petition has been filed. Two contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner. It is first contended that the dismissal of the revision petition by the Executive Officer without notice to the petitioner is in violation of Rule 11(A) under which notice to the petitioner is mandatory, Secondly it is contended that the appeal filed by the petitioner to the council could be disposed of only by the council; that it has been disposed of by the Executive Officer himself; and that the Executive Officer has no jurisdiction to arrogate to himself the powers of the Council and therefore the order passed by the Executive Officer on the appeal petition is totally void as being without jurisdiction.
(3.) THE respondent has not filed any counter -affidavit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.