Case Law Details
R. Rajinikanth Vs Commissioner (Madras High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether the petition filed for disposal of notice for demanding property tax without waiting for disposal of same case by Municipal Corporation is justified in law?
In the instant case, Municipal Corporation of chennai issued notice in the name of Rajanikanth for payment of property tax on marriage hall owned by him. According to Rajinikanth, the marriage hall owned by him has remained vacant from March 23 till now due to the COVID-19 lockdown imposed by the government. As per Section 105 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act provides for remission from tax for properties that remained vacant or unlet.
High Court states that, the Writ Petition is premature, since the petitioner has rushed to the Court within two weeks of issuing the Notice in question to the respondents instead of pursuing its consideration and disposal firstly, with the authorities itself. High Court thus inclined to dismiss this Writ Petition in limine.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose its Notice under communication dated 23.09.2020 issued to the Commissioner in terms of Section 105 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act 1919. I am of the view that this Writ Petition is premature, since the petitioner has rushed to the Court within two weeks of issuing the Notice in question to the respondents instead of pursuing its consideration and disposal firstly, with the authorities itself. I am thus inclined to dismiss this Writ Petition in limine.
2. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he files a memo under cover of e-mail dated 10.2020 seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition.
3. Acceding to this request, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
No costs. Connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
