1). The petitioners carry on business as builders. In the year 1995, they purchased the land in question alongwith the structures/buildings standing thereon. The dispute raised in the present petition relates to the property taxes payable in respect of the land to respondent no.1-Municipal Corporation. Respondents no.2 to 5 are the officers of respondent no.1.

2). For the purpose of its development, whenever the petitioners demolished the structures standing on the land in question, the assessment of property taxes in respect thereof had been revised in view of the demolitions. Later, when the petitioners submitted the building construction plans for approval to respondent no.2, they had paid sewerage charges. They had also been paying water taxes separately. Therefore, they had contended before the respondents that they were not liable to pay water tax and sewerage tax included in the property tax bill and requested for deletion of the two taxes. The contention of the petitioners was accepted by the respondents and by the letter dated 5th June, 2010, they informed the petitioners of sanction of deletion of sewerage taxes for the period 1st July, 2005 to 21st January, 2007 and both the taxes for the period 22nd January, 2007 to 10th November, 2009. However, the subsequent bills of the respondent continued with the demand for the two taxes. The petitioners, then made payment of property taxes to the respondents by unilaterally deleting water tax and sewerage tax from the property tax bills. On account of non-payment of the property taxes in full, the respondents have initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioners by attaching the land in question.

3). According to the petitioners, in view of the deductions allowed earlier, the respondents cannot levy water tax and sewerage tax on the land in question. One more reason for deleting water tax from the property tax bills, according to the petitioners, is that there is no more water supply to the land, it having been disconnected without the petitioner's consent. As regards the sewerage tax, since the petitioners had paid sewerage charges at the time of sanctioning of the plans, until the construction of the building is complete and occupation certificate is granted, the petitioners are not liable to pay that tax. It has also been submitted across the bar by Mr. Sancheti, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, that since the respondents are recovering compounding charges, inclusion of these two taxes in the property bills would be double taxation. On these grounds, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the warrant of attachment of the property in question and the writ of mandamus for direction to respondent no.4 to issue future property tax bills without adding water tax and sewerage tax.

4). The petition is opposed by the respondents on the ground of its maintainability, as also, the merits. The respondents allege that the petitioners have suppressed several material facts from the Court and also that there are several disputed facts involved in the petition. Further, there is alternate remedy available to the petitioners of filing an appeal under Section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.M.C. Act') to the Court of Small Causes.

5). Mr. Sancheti, initially submitted that the dispute in the present petition is covered by the decision in MARS Enterprises V/s. Mumbai Municipal Corporation, reported in 2007 (4) Bom. Cases Reporter page 752, by which a Single Judge of this Court has made a reference to a larger bench on the point, Whether under Section 140 of the M.M.C. Act, the Corporation can levy water tax only on actual supply of water. While making the reference, the learned Single Judge had found that there is a direct conflict in respect of the judgments given by two Division Benches of this Court i.e. the judgments in the case of Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd and anr. V. Munic