Judgment:
1. The present petitioner is an assesse paying property tax to the Sivakasi Municipality. When challenging the issuance of notices claiming enhanced tax, the petitioner filed various Writ petitions. Those Writ petitions were not entertained by this Court on the ground that the petitioner must avail the remedy by way of filing an appeal to the Taxation Appellate Committee placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in Razeena Begum and another Vs. Pudukkottai Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, Pudukkottai reported in 2009(1) MLJ 42. Following the same, the learned Judge dismissed the Writ petition.
2.The original Writ petitioner has filed the present Review applications contending the direction to go before the Taxation Appellate Committee was erroneous. Since it were a special notices issued by the Municipality, it must contain reasons and the notices itself were illegal in view of the decision of the earlier Division Bench in 1995(2) MLJ 43the Review came to be filed. It is also stated that reliance placed upon the judgment of this Court in Razeena Begum in 2009(1) MLJ 42 is a decision of a Single Bench and the earlier Division Bench is binding on the Single Bench.
3.Two questions arise for consideration. (i) whether this Court in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution has discretion to direct the parties to go before an appellate forum and (ii)whether the appellate forum is an effective forum which can give relief to the petitioner.
4.On the first question, the learned Judge refused to exercise discretion in entertaining the Writ petition. There can be no fault found on the refusal to exercise the discretion because driving a party to an alternative forum itself will amount to the refusal to exercise discretion in entertaining the Writ petition at the first instance. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party by the order passed by this Court.
5.Secondly, even if an order is exfacie illegal or not issued in terms of the Act, the question about the illegal nature of the order can also be raised before the Appellate Authority. Before the amendment to the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act introducing Section 23-A by the amending Act 16/1989, this Court felt that the Taxation Appellate Committee was created by the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and it cannot be an effective body for the purpose of deciding the orders issued by the Commissioner or the Municipal Committee either levying a revised tax or enhancing the tax. Section 23-A of the District Municipalities Act had granted a statutory character to the Taxation Appellate Committee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Taxation Appellate Committee has no power to grant relief to the petitioner.
6.Ultimately the power of the Court under Article 226 is discretionary. It cannot be exercised merely because of the petitioner had approached this Court. The Court can always direct parties to go before the appropriate Taxation Appellate Committee before approaching this Court.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others reported in 2010(9) SCC 496 contending that principles of natural justice has virtually become an indispensable component of decision making process. Therefore, even the National Commission which hears a consumer grievance has to record reasons and not pass a cryptic orders. This Court is not inclined to accept the said decision having a bearing on this case.
8.On the other hand, any order determination of grievances projected through a statutory power must necessarily be informed of reason and must comply with principles of natural justice. But levying tax or enhancing tax cannot be said to be a quasi judicial power. But, it may have a trapping of a statutory authority exercising right in which citizens right may be infringed in some way. It is only with a view to obviate such a difficulty, the legislature had provided an appellate machinery. Therefore, there is reason as to why the petitioner cannot avail such a remedy. It is needless to state that if there is still any grievance, there are forums open to the petitioner to approach. It cannot be said that at the first instance, they will necessarily move only this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
9.In such circumstances, there is no case made out for reviewing the order passed by this Court. Hence, the Review application stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed.