New Delhi [India], August 21 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Khan Market Welfare Association challenging the manner in which the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) determines rateable values and assesses property tax, holding that the court cannot, under its writ jurisdiction, take over the statutory or administrative functions of the municipal authority.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Shail Jain observed that a writ of mandamus can require a public authority to act according to law, but it does not ordinarily empower the court to itself formulate the methodology by which a statutory authority should exercise its functions.
“The Court cannot, under the guise of issuing a mandamus, substitute its own formulation for that of the competent statutory authority,” the Bench observed.
The court was hearing a petition filed by the Khan Market Welfare Association, representing property owners, entrepreneurs and residents of commercial and mixed-use areas falling within the NDMC jurisdiction.
The association had alleged that similarly situated properties were being subjected to substantially different rateable values and consequential property tax liabilities. It had sought, among other reliefs, a direction to NDMC to formulate a uniform method for fixing rateable values, constitution of an expert committee to examine alleged irregularities and directions for strict compliance with provisions of the NDMC Act.
The Bench, however, held that the reliefs sought in the petition travelled beyond the permissible scope of a writ of mandamus.
It noted that determining the methodology for assessment of rateable values, so long as the authority acts within the statutory framework, involves statutory and administrative functions entrusted to the authority by the legislature.
“Judicial review is directed towards the legality of the exercise of power and not towards the Court itself undertaking the function entrusted to the statutory authority,” the court said.
The court further observed that the mere allegation that an existing methodology causes arbitrariness, discrimination or hardship would not by itself justify a direction requiring the court to prescribe a different assessment system.
The Bench clarified that this does not mean NDMC is free to act arbitrarily. Its statutory discretion remains subject to the NDMC Act and constitutional limitations governing State action.
The court said an individual assessment or levy can be challenged in appropriate proceedings if it is shown to be contrary to the statute, without jurisdiction, legally discriminatory or otherwise vitiated by an impermissible exercise of power.
The Bench also rejected the prayer seeking constitution of an expert committee, observing that the association had not identified any specific statutory duty requiring such a committee to be constituted.
According to the court, such a direction would require it to create an administrative mechanism, prescribe its composition and define functions which had not been shown to be statutorily vested in such a body.
The court also found a separate difficulty with the maintainability of the petition by the association. It noted that the alleged prejudice arising from determination of rateable values and levy of property tax was essentially suffered by individual property owners and assessees.
“An association cannot, merely by aggregating the individual grievances of its members, seek a mandamus for enforcement of rights which are personal to such members,” the Bench observed.
The court noted that the present petition was not a public interest litigation seeking enforcement of a public right or a right of persons unable to approach the court themselves. The association had also failed to demonstrate any independent right of its own that had been infringed.
The Bench further clarified that it had not examined the merits of the allegations made by the association regarding the manner in which NDMC assesses rateable values or levies property tax.
It said the dismissal was confined to the reliefs sought in prayers (a), (c) and (d), which were found not amenable to a writ of mandamus in their present form.
The court also made it clear that the dismissal would not prevent individual assessees from availing remedies under the NDMC Act against particular assessments, including challenges concerning determination of rateable value, non-compliance with statutory procedure or unreasonable delay in finalising proceedings.
The association was represented by Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal, assisted by advocates Shaini Bhardwaj and Avichal Mishra. NDMC was represented by its counsel, while other respondents were represented by their respective counsel. The court accordingly dismissed the writ petition. (ANI)
Related reading
