Full Text
$~11, 14,16-31.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DIU...Jil AT NEW Dl<:LHI
W.P.(C) 16748/2004
%
JUDGMENT
TI IE ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED P ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.S.K. Jain, Adv.
Through : Ms.Madhu Tewatia, Adv. for MCD. W.J>.(C) 19978/2004
MAIIARAJA AGARSEN TECHNICAL EDU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.K. Jain, Adv.
Through : Ms.Madhu Tewatia, Adv. for MCD. W.P.(C) 12830/2009
SUMERMAL JAIN EDUCATION AND WELFARE
SOC! ETY ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Varun Gupta, Adv. for Ms.Maninder
Acharya, Adv. for MCD. W.P.(C) 12838/2009
MAMTA MODERN EDUCATION SOCIETY(REGD.)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELTII ..... Respondent
Acharya, Adv. for MCD. W.P.(C) 12840/2009
WP.(C) 16748/2004 & Ors. Page I o.f6
2012:DHC:9126
MAMTA MODERN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY(REGD.)
Acharya, Adv. for MCD.
. W.J>.(C) 12842/2009
MAMTA MODERN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY(REGD.)
Acharya, Adv. for MCD. W.P.(C) 12846/2009
MAMTA MODERN EDUCATION SOCIETY(REGD.)
SUMERMAL JAIN EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE
SOCIETY ..... Petitioner
Mr.Varun Gupta, Adv. for Ms.Maninder
Acharya, Adv. lor MCD.
Through:
W.P.(C) 13040/2009
SUMERMAL JAIN EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE
SOCIETY ..... Petitioner
W.P.(C) 16748/2004 & Ors. l'a~e 2 o{"6
~.
Acharya, Adv. for MCD. W.P.(C) 2316/2010
DAV COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMNET SOCIETY ..... Petitioner
Acharya, Adv. for MCD. W.P.(C) 2317/2010
DAV COLLLEGE TRUST MANAGEAMENT SOCY
MCD
Acharya, Adv. for MCD. W.P.(C) 2324/2010
MAlIAVIRA FOUNDATION ..... Petitioner
Acharya, Adv. for MCD. W.P.(C) 2328/2010
DAV COLLEGE TRUST MANAGEMENT SOCY
WI'.(C) 16748/2004 & Ors. J•age 3 t!l6
•
Acharya, Adv. for MCD. W.P.(C) 2340/2010
SUMERMAL .JAIN EDUCATIONAL &
WELFARE SOCIETY ..... Petitioner
Mr.S.K. Jain, Adv.
MCD
Through : Mr.Varun Gupta, Adv. for Ms. Maninder
Acharya, Adv. for MCD. W.P.(C) 2342/2010
DAV COLLEGE TRUST MANAGEMENT SOCIETY
MCD
GR GOENKA EDUCATION SOCIETY REGD
DAV COLLEGE TRUST & MANAGEMENT SOCIETY
W.P.(C) 16748/2004 & Ors.
I'age 4 l~( 6
•
W.P.(C) 2346/2010
G R GOENKA EDUCATION SOCIETY REGD
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. While W.P.(C) 16748-49/2004 has been filed by Action Committee for Unaided Private Schools, an organization representing a large number of recognized/unaided private schools of Delhi, the other writ petitions have been filed by schools in their individual capacity. By the present writ petitions, the petitioners seck to challenge the impugned order/circular dated 29.7.2004 issued by respondent no.l assigning usc factor-::~ (Utility Purpose Building) or usc factor-3 (Industry Purpose Building) to unaided private recognized schools on the basis of quantum tuition fcc charged from the students.
7 It is the case of the petitioners that all the schools arc unaided recognized schools and arc being managed by charitable society/trust, which is a non-business and non-profit organization and the amounts received arc re-deployed and ploughed back for expansion of education and no part of it is diverted in any manner for any other purpose.
3. The petitioners prior to the filing of the present writ petitions had filed Jlouse Tax Appeals before the Municipal Taxation Tribunal, Delhi, under Section 169 of DMC (Amendment) Act, 2003, and had challenged the aforesaid Circular dated 29.7.2004. The petitioners had also u:P.(() 16748/2004 & On. !'age 5 t~f 6 deposited the full amount of property tax assessed on application of usc factor-2 or usc factor-3 as prescribed by the Order/Circular dated 29.7.2004. Appeals Jilcd were dismissed, which has led to the filing of the present writ petitions.
4. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that the writ petitions lilcd against the impugned judgnicnt dated 12.2.2008, passed by the Municipal Taxation Tribunal, were listed bcf(xc a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench vide judgment dated 23.8.2012 in the ·Sf:lid writ petitions including Vinod Krishna Kaul v. Lt. Governor NCT ofDelhi & Ors., reported at 192 (2012) DLT 241 (DB), had held that the classification of school based on fcc structure is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and beyond the mandate or Amendment Act of
1957. Counsel further points out that the Division Bench had also held that usc factor-! assigned to Government and Government aided schools would be applicable to all schools till fresh exercise in the matter is completed by a Municipal Valuation Committee constituted under Section 116 of DMC (Amendment) Act, 2003, on expiry of every three years.
5. In view or the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Vinod Krishna Kaul (supra), present writ petitions arc remanded back to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to decide the assessment of the petitioners as per the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Vinod Krishna Kaul (supra).
6. Accordingly writ petitions stand disposed of in view of above. ~(~-.£S.S~IS'I'ANI J- •....... •\......... '.. NOVEMBER 29, 2012 msr