SHIVAJI SMARAK SAMITI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 and P.I. Ansari, for respondent No. 5.

(2.) THIS writ petition as public interest litigation (in short "PIL") has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs: "(I) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No. 6 to bring on record the alleged enhancement of house tax for the year 2005-2006,2007-2008 in respect of ward No. 1 to 15 and quash the same. (II) Issue a further order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to levy the house tax illegally, arbitrarily without due process of law from the residents of Nagar Panchayat Sikandrapur District Ballia and realize house tax as was fixed prior to 2005-2006 unless determined and revised in accordance with law. (III) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. (IV) Award cost of the writ petition."

(3.) THIS Court when inquired from learned counsel for the petitioners that since there is an individual assessment of house tax of the concerned residents, writ petition as PIL is not maintainable in such matter, he placed reliance on the Apex Court's decision in M.C. Mehta and another v. Union of India and others, 1987(1) SCC 395; Dr. D.C. Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1987(1) SCC 378; Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and others, 2002(2) SCC 333 and Indian Banks' Association, Bombay and others v. Dev kala Consultancy Service and others, 2004(11) SCC 1 and contended that where there is a flagrant violation of the statutory provisions, writ petition as a PIL would be maintainable.