The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Khan Market Welfare Association seeking directions to the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to adopt a uniform methodology for determining rateable value and property tax, holding that the reliefs sought could not be granted through a writ of mandamus. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain pronounced the judgment.
The dispute arose against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment declaring NDMC’s 2009 Bye-laws introducing the Dual Method of assessment, including principles of the Unit Area Method (UAM), ultra vires. However, the Supreme Court had protected assessments already made under those Bye-laws, exercising its powers under Article 142.
The Association had alleged that NDMC was adopting different methods for similarly situated properties, resulting in substantial disparities in rateable values and property-tax liability. It sought, among other things, a uniform method of assessment, constitution of an expert committee to examine alleged irregularities, and directions to NDMC to strictly comply with provisions of the NDMC Act. NDMC, on the other hand, argued that the factors relevant to assessment necessarily differ depending upon the property’s location, use, occupation and other circumstances.
The High Court held that the Association’s principal prayer effectively required the Court to formulate and impose a particular method of property-tax assessment, which falls within the statutory and administrative domain of NDMC. The Court observed:
“
“In substance, therefore, what is sought is a direction from this Court as to the manner in which the statutory authority should formulate and administer the methodology for determination of rateable values. Such a direction cannot ordinarily be issued in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The determination of the methodology to be adopted for assessment of rateable values, so long as the authority acts within the statutory framework, involves the exercise of statutory and administrative functions entrusted to the authority by the legislature. The Court cannot, under the guise of issuing a mandamus, substitute its own formulation for that of the competent statutory authority.”
The Bench clarified that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the exercise of statutory power, and not with the Court itself taking over functions entrusted by legislation to the statutory authority.
The Court further held that merely alleging that an existing methodology causes hardship, arbitrariness or discrimination does not automatically justify a mandamus directing the authority to adopt a different methodology. Such interference may be warranted where the exercise of power is shown to be mala fide, irrational, based on extraneous considerations or otherwise contrary to law.
The Association had also sought constitution of an expert committee empowered to investigate alleged frauds, irregularities and discrepancies in the fixation of rateable values. The Court found that the petition did not identify any statutory duty requiring NDMC to constitute such a committee. Creating such a mechanism, prescribing its composition and assigning it functions would effectively require the Court to create an administrative structure not shown to have been contemplated under the statute.
The Court similarly declined the prayer for a general direction requiring NDMC to ensure compliance with various provisions of the NDMC Act, observing that a statutory authority is already bound by the statute governing its functioning.
Also Read: 3 Years to 1 Year: SC Relaxes Practice Requirement For Entry-Level Judicial Service
The Bench further held that an association cannot simply aggregate the individual grievances of its members and seek a mandamus unless it establishes an independent legal right of its own or the proceedings fall within the permissible parameters of representative or public-interest litigation.
Since the reliefs themselves were found not amenable to a writ of mandamus, the Court said it was unnecessary to examine the merits of the allegations concerning NDMC’s assessment practices.
“
“The Petitioner is an association, whereas the alleged prejudice arising from the determination of rateable values and levy of property tax is, in substance, stated to be suffered by individual property owners and assessees. The present proceedings are not in the nature of a public interest litigation seeking enforcement of a public right or a right of persons unable to approach the Court themselves. In a petition seeking a mandamus, the Petitioner must ordinarily establish a legal and judicially enforceable right corresponding to a legal duty on the part of the Respondents. The Petitioner has not demonstrated any independent right of the association which has been infringed.
The distinction is material, since 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 Court clarified that the dismissal does not prevent individual assessees from challenging particular assessments or seeking remedies under the NDMC Act in relation to rateable value, statutory non-compliance or unreasonable delay.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
