AKOLA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. versus ZISHAN HUSSAIN AZHAR HUSSAIN AND ANR.

Citation: [2025] 12 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 08-12-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 12 S.C.R. 391 : 2025 INSC 1398
Akola Municipal Corporation and Anr. 
v. 
Zishan Hussain Azhar Hussain and Anr.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 12488-12489 of 2024)
08 December 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in entertaining 
the Public Interest Litigation filed by the respondent, assailing the 
resolution passed by the appellant-Corporation to increase the 
property tax for the year 2017-18 to 2021-22.
Headnotes†
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Economic 
Policy decision – Challenge to – Public interest litigation filed 
by the respondent no.1 challenging the revision of property tax 
by the appellant-Corporation for a period of five years- 2017-
18 to 2021-22, thereby increasing the tax rates in respect of 
properties situated within the jurisdictional limits of appellant-
Corporation, which was irrational and arbitrary by passing 
a resolution and allegedly without following the procedure 
established by law – High Court quashed and set aside the 
resolution passed by the appellant-Corporation determining 
the mode and manner in which the property taxes are to be 
imposed for a period of five years – Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable – Locus of the respondent-writ petitioner 
in filing the writ petition before the High Court questionable – 
Respondent-writ petitioner, did not claim that he was representing 
the entire populace of the Akola city – There exists a mechanism of 
statutory remedy provided under the 1949 Act for challenging the 
decision of the Corporations – Thus, the writ petition purportedly 
in public interest was nothing but an action taken as a subterfuge 
to avoid filing of the appeals against the proposal to increase the 
property tax – High Court exceeded the well-settled tenets of scope 
of judicial review in effectively substituting its own opinion for that 
of the appellant-Corporation – Matters of tax revision fell squarely 
within the domain of the appellant-Corporation, and the High Court 
* Author
392
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
ought not to have reassessed the merits of the policy decision as 
if it was sitting in appeal over the said decision – Trivial errors in 
the process of revision would not vitiate the entire regime of tax 
revision and collection – High Court not justified in invoking powers 
of judicial review in a public interest litigation so as to interfere in 
the economic policy decision taken by the appellant-Corporation to 
increase the rates of the property taxes and particularly when such 
revision was made after a considerable gap of about 16 years – 
Said exercise not permissible to be undertaken in the extraordinary 
writ jurisdiction of the Court – No finding by the High Court that the 
decision to increase the tax rates perverse or unconstitutional – 
Further, in the absence of any challenge to the substantive authority 
of the appellant-Corporation to revise municipal taxes, the scope of 
scrutiny before the High Court stood confined solely to examining 
whether the statutory procedure had been complied with – High 
Court ought not to have embarked upon a roving inquiry into the 
merits or wisdom of the decision to revise the tax rates unless it 
was demonstrated that the procedure adopted by the appellant was 
ex-facie arbitrary, perverse, unreasonable or in blatant derogation 
of the governing statutory provisions – No such material placed 
before the Court, nor does the record disclose any such infirmity – 
Thus, the High Court transgressed the permissible limits of judicial 
review in interfering with the decision of the appellant to revise 
the rate of property taxes – Judgment passed by the High Court 
set aside. [Paras 12, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28]
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Public 
interest litigation challenging economic policy decision – 
Judicial Interference – Scope:
Held: Judicial interference by way of public interest litigation is 
available only if there is injury to public because of dereliction of 
constitutional obligations on the part of the Government – Writ 
jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be exercised in public interest 
for questioning the economic/fiscal policy or reforms sought to be 
undertaken by the Government or its functionaries. [Paras 21, 12]
Municipal Bodies – Scheme of municipal governance – 
Financial Autonomy – Necessity – Discussed [Paras 6-8]
Case Law Cited
Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.