2018 (11) TMI 1856 - HC - Indian Laws

Exemption from Property Tax - section 101(E) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 - Proper authority to pass this order - HELD THAT - The petitioner has filed a writ petition earlier in W.P.No.25872 of 2003, challenging the demand notice dated 24.02.2003 as well as a communication that the petitioner is not exempted from payment of property tax under section 101(E) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. The said writ petition was disposed of on 02.07.2018 by directing the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai to consider the request of the petitioner seeking for exemption and pass reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - Therefore, it is evident that only the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, was directed to pass such order and not the Deputy Commissioner - Even though it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Commissioner has power to delegate the exercise to be done by the Deputy Commissioner, that could be done only under normal circumstances and not when a specific direction was issued by this Court. Thus, it is for the Commissioner to pass an order as directed by this Court and not the Deputy Commissioner as has been done in this case - this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the first respondent for passing order on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner to pass order under section 101(E) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.
2. Validity of delegation of power from Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner.
3. Compliance with court directions in W.P.No.25872 of 2003.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of exemption from property tax under section 101(E) by the 2nd respondent, Deputy Commissioner, contending that the order violated court directions from a previous case. The court noted that the earlier writ petition directed the Commissioner alone to consider the request for exemption and pass orders after hearing the petitioner. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner was not entitled to pass the impugned order, emphasizing that the Commissioner was specifically directed to handle the matter. The court found that delegation to the Deputy Commissioner was not appropriate in this case, setting aside the order and remitting the matter back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.

2. The respondents argued that the Commissioner had the power to delegate authority to the Deputy Commissioner, justifying the latter's decision to reject the exemption request. However, the court found that while delegation was possible under normal circumstances, it was not appropriate when specific directions were issued by the court. The court emphasized that in this case, the Commissioner was specifically directed to pass the order, and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner's decision was not valid. The court ordered the matter to be reconsidered by the Commissioner in line with the court's directions.

3. The court highlighted that the earlier writ petition had instructed the Commissioner to consider the petitioner's request for exemption and pass a reasoned order after affording a personal hearing. As the court had not authorized the Deputy Commissioner to handle the matter, the decision made by the Deputy Commissioner was deemed improper. The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim by either party but focused on ensuring compliance with its directives. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the first respondent to reevaluate the matter within eight weeks while providing the petitioner with a proper hearing opportunity.