SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Bom) 227

B.H.MARLAPALLE, N.V.DABHOLKAR
Bhalchandra Anandrao Kango – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


JUDGMENT

B.H. Marlapalle, J.

1. 1. All these three petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, raise a common question viz. the power of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO) to levy and collect service charges from the residents of New Aurangabad and hence they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. 2. In the first petition, the petitioners are residents of New Aurangabad who were allotted residential plots by CIDCO for construction of residential dwellings, whereas in the second petition a co-operative housing society is the petitioner. The third petition has been filed by a public trust registered for the purpose of welfare activities in the N-5 sector of CIDCO, Aurangabad. In the first petition the respondent No. 3 had issued, sometimes in February/March, 1990, bills for service charges and called upon the plot owners to pay the same at the rate of Rs. 4/- per square meter for residential plots [built up area] and Rs. 6/-per square meter for the commercial

plots. Similarly, notices were issued on 18th January, 1991 as well as 16th September, 1991 demanding service charges at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top