The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Aivaj Dewangan (WPC No. 6450 of 2024), challenging the exemption of municipal taxes granted to industries within the limits of the Beergaon Municipal Corporation. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, presiding over the case, ruled the petition as non-maintainable, emphasizing the petitioner’s lack of locus standi and personal impact from the impugned order. The court, however, left the door open for a public interest litigation (PIL) to address the larger public concerns raised in the matter.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Aivaj Dewangan, a resident of Trimurti Nagar, Raipur, argued against the decision of the State of Chhattisgarh and the Beergaon Municipal Corporation to exempt industrial units from paying municipal taxes since 2010. Dewangan contended that the exemption granted under a notification dated September 13, 2023, allowed powerful industrialists to avoid their tax liabilities, depriving the municipal corporation of crucial revenue.
Dewangan’s petition highlighted the inclusion of six villages—Beergaon, Urla, Achholi, Sarona, Rawabhatha, and Urkura—under the municipal jurisdiction in 2009. Despite this, he alleged that industries within these limits had not been paying their dues as mandated by the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.
The petitioner sought quashing of the exemption order and demanded the recovery of municipal taxes with penalties from the industrial units.
Key Legal Issues
1. Locus Standi: The court examined whether Dewangan had a personal or fundamental right affected by the impugned order, as required under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Public Interest: Whether the exemption was justifiable as being in the broader interest of the state’s industrial development.
3. Taxation Powers: The applicability and enforcement of tax recovery provisions under Sections 132–142 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.
Arguments Presented
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Advocate Prateek Sharma argued that the exemption was arbitrary and discriminatory, benefiting influential industrialists at the cost of municipal resources. He emphasized the petitioner’s repeated representations to authorities, starting from 2016, which went unaddressed.
– Respondent’s Counsel: Representing the State, Mr. Rishabh Bisen defended the exemption as a measure to attract industrial investments, which served the public interest. Counsel for the Beergaon Municipal Corporation, Mr. Satish Gupta, argued that the petitioner lacked the standing to challenge the policy decision.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to maintain the writ petition, noting:
“A person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by any order/action or his fundamental rights invaded or violated.”
The court cited the Supreme Court’s precedent in Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others (2001), reaffirming that challenges under Article 226 require demonstrable personal or fundamental rights violations. The judgment clarified that larger public interest concerns could be addressed through a PIL, for which the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the court.
