The Delhi High Court has held that court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot direct formulation of a particular methodology to determine rateable value and assess property tax as such matters fall within the statutory and administrative domain of the competent authority. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 774]

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Shail Jain dismissed a plea filed by the Khan Market Welfare Association seeking directions to the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to formulate and implement a uniform methodology for fixing rateable values of properties.

The Court observed that a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is issued to enforce a legal right corresponding to a statutory or public duty, and cannot be used by the Court to assume the function of a statutory authority or prescribe the manner in which that authority should discharge its administrative functions.

The Association, comprising shopkeepers and property owners of Khan Market, had alleged disparities in the manner in which NDMC determines rateable values and assesses property tax for similarly situated properties.

It thus sought a direction to NDMC to adopt a uniform method for fixing rateable values until implementation of the Unit Area Method.

Dismissing the plea, the Court, at the outset, noted that what was sought was a direction to be issued as to the manner in which the statutory authority should formulate and administer the methodology for determination of rateable values.

The Court held that such a direction cannot ordinarily be issued in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It added that 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 principle is not that the exercise of statutory power is immune from judicial review, rather, it is that judicial review is directed towards the legality of the exercise of power and not towards the Court itself undertaking the function entrusted to the statutory authority,” it added.

Further, it was observed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot ordinarily be invoked for creation of an institutional mechanism merely because the Petitioner Association alleges irregularities in the functioning of a statutory authority being the NDMC.

However, it said that writ jurisdiction can certainly be invoked where a taxing or revenue authority seeks to levy or collect a tax which is unconstitutional, ultra vires the statute, or which the authority has no jurisdiction to levy.

It said that the Court may, in an appropriate case, issue a mandamus restraining such unlawful levy or direct consequential relief where the law so warrants.

“This does not mean that the Respondents are free to act arbitrarily. The statutory discretion vested in them remains subject to the requirements of the NDMC Act and to the constitutional limitations governing State action,” the Court said.

“An assessment or levy which is shown, in an appropriate proceeding, to be contrary to the statute, without jurisdiction, discriminatory in a legally cognisable sense, or otherwise vitiated by an impermissible exercise of power, can certainly be subjected to judicial review. But that is materially different from asking the Court to prescribe a uniform assessment methodology for the Respondents or to establish an expert mechanism for overseeing their statutory functions,” it added.

Title: KHAN MARKET WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) v. UOI & ORS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 774

Click here to read order