Recovery of charges must be in compliance with the relevant legal provisions, and authorities have a duty to address audit objections diligently to prevent prejudice to public interest.

1. Heard Shri Lohiya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Shri Balpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6.

2. Cognizance of the present matter has been taken in public interest.

3. Three issues have been presented to the Court. First one is levy and recovery of land development charges contrary to the Scheme of Section 124A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 or then the explanation furnished in relation thereto by Section 12 of the Maharashtra Act No.10 of 1994. Second issue is about the recovery of rain harvesting charges and the last issue is about 522 unattended audit objections for the period from 1999 to 2006.

4. Shri Lohiya, learned counsel submits that provisions of Section 124A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “1966 Act”) added on 10/08/1992 show that the same are prospective only and no retrospective recovery or levy is permitted. By relying upon proviso added to Sub-Section (2) vide Maharashtra Act No.10 of 1994 and the clarification by Section 12 thereof, he submits that if permission to develop / construct was already procured or deemed to have been given before 10th August, 1992, recovery is not permitted. During arguments, he submitted that in fact, the dispute mainly pertains to recovery of land development charges from 10/08/1992 onwards. According to him, though such charge could not have been claimed at all, almost in all cases, land development charges have been levied and also paid by the citizens. He, therefore, submits that, the amount of recovery towards land development charges must be refunded. He points out an instance where Municipal Council admitted its mistake and ordered refund.

5. In relation to rain harvesting charges, Shri Lohiya, learned counsel submits that Section 105 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “1965 Act”) does not permit any such levy even as an interim measure. Entry which may have some bearing on it has been added for the first time on 4th August, 2012 to Section 105. He, therefore, submits that in this situation when there is no provision in law and there is no reply also by the Municipal Council explaining the source and sanction for such recovery, said amount needs to be refunded.

6. In relation to 522 audit objections, he submits that no serious cognizance of these audit objections has been taken by anybody. Audit objections show last scale manipulation and misappropriation. He relies heavily upon reply affidavit filed by respondent No.2 to urge that there, the authority has pointed out falseness in claim of compliances made by the Municipal Council and how the compliance is merely an eye wash. He has relied upon Section 104 of “1965 Act” and the provisions of the the Bombay Local Fund Audit Act, 1930 to submit that in this situation, respondent No.2 ought to have referred the matter to the said authority so that appropriate surcharge can be worked out and amount can be recovered from the persons found guilty.

7. The position of audit after the year 2006 till date, is not within the knowledge of the petitioners. He has invited our attention to certain orders passed in this petition demanding information from the Municipal Council in relation to development charges. He claims that those details or clarifications are still not furnished.

8. Shri Balpande, learned A.G.P. relies upon the reply affidavit mentioned supra.

9. Ms. Chandurkar, learned counsel submits that no reply has been sought for from respondent No.1 and there are no allegations against respondent No.1.

10. Shri Sambre, learned counsel submits that efforts made by the Municipal Council to comply with the audit objections, are placed by an affidavit before this Court. All possible steps have been taken and the Chief Offi