JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Lohiya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Shri Balpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6. 2. Cognizance of the present matter has been taken in public interest. 3. Three issues have been presented to the Court. First one is levy and recovery of land development charges contrary to the Scheme of Section 124A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 or then the explanation furnished in relation thereto by Section 12 of the Maharashtra Act No.10 of 1994. Second issue is about the recovery of rain harvesting charges and the last issue is about 522 unattended audit objections for the period from 1999 to 2006. 4. Shri Lohiya, learned counsel submits that provisions of Section 124A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “1966 Act”) added on 10/08/1992 show that the same are prospective only and no retrospective recovery or levy is permitted. By relying upon proviso added to Sub-Section (2) vide Maharashtra Act No.10 of 1994 and the clarification by Section 12 thereof, he submits that if permission to develop / construct was already procured or deemed to have been given before 10th August, 1992, recovery is not permitted. During arguments, he submitted that in fact, the dispute mainly pertains to recovery of land development charges from 10/08/1992 onwards. According to him, though such charge could not have been claimed at all, almost in all cases, land development charges have been levied and also paid by the citizens. He, therefore, submits that, the amount of recovery towards land development charges must be refunded. He points out an instance where Municipal Council admitted its mistake and ordered refund. 5. In relation to rain harvesting charges, Shri Lohiya, learned counsel submits that Section 105 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “1965 Act”) does not permit any such levy even as an interim measure. Entry which may have some bearing on it has been added for the first time on 4th August, 2012 to Section 105. Entry which may have some bearing on it has been added for the first time on 4th August, 2012 to Section 105. He, therefore, submits that in this situation when there is no provision in law and there is no reply also by the Municipal Council explaining the source and sanction for such recovery, said amount needs to be refunded. 6. In relation to 522 audit objections, he submits that no serious cognizance of these audit objections has been taken by anybody. Audit objections show last scale manipulation and misappropriation. He relies heavily upon reply affidavit filed by respondent No.2 to urge that there, the authority has pointed out falseness in claim of compliances made by the Municipal Council and how the compliance is merely an eye wash. He has relied upon Section 104 of “1965 Act” and the provisions of the the Bombay Local Fund Audit Act, 1930 to submit that in this situation, respondent No.2 ought to have referred the matter to the said authority so that appropriate surcharge can be worked out and amount can be recovered from the persons found guilty. 7. The position of audit after the year 2006 till date, is not within the knowledge of the petitioners. He has invited our attention to certain orders passed in this petition demanding information from the Municipal Council in relation to development charges. He claims that those details or clarifications are still not furnished. 8. Shri Balpande, learned A.G.P. relies upon the reply affidavit mentioned supra. 9. Ms. Chandurkar, learned counsel submits that no reply has been sought for from respondent No.1 and there are no allegations against respondent No.1. 10. Shri Sambre, learned counsel submits that efforts made by the Municipal Council to comply with the audit objections, are placed by an affidavit before this Court. All possible steps have been taken and the Chief Officer has got limited powers in the matter. 11. Insofar as recovery of land development charges is concerned, he points out that the provisions of Section 124A (1) of “1966 Act” permit such levy separately only in relation to land also. According to him, unless such levy in individual cases, is pointed out to be unjust, cognizance cannot be taken by the Municipal Council. 11. Insofar as recovery of land development charges is concerned, he points out that the provisions of Section 124A (1) of “1966 Act” permit such levy separately only in relation to land also. According to him, unless such levy in individual cases, is pointed out to be unjust, cognizance cannot be taken by the Municipal Council. Information supplied to the petitioners by the Municipal Council only discloses figures of development charges recovered by it and it does not mean that the said recovery is illegal. He also points out that when the levy was found unwarranted, the Municipal Council refunded the amount to the persons paying it. But later on, refund is found to be wrong and hence, efforts are made to recover the refunded amount. 12. Lastly, he submits that insofar as recovery of rain harvesting charges are concerned, though there is no reply affidavit before this Court, as per his instructions that amount is recovered as deposit to see that person to whom permission has been given, constructs necessary structure for rain water harvesting. If such an arrangement is found constructed that deposit is refunded. He further adds that through the amount received in deposit, the Municipal Council has also undertaken some work towards rain harvesting. He, therefore, submits that the grievance in public interest, in this respect is unsustainable. 13. Perusal of affidavit reply filed by respondent No.2 in compliance of the order of this Court dated 21st September, 2011, particularly in para 5, reveals substance in contention of the petitioners. 522 audit objections and compliance report filed in relation to 49 audit objections, out of it has been brought on record in that paragraph. Authority also states that the compliances were found not satisfactory and therefore, further explanation was called for by the Assistant Director, Local Fund. The Municipal Council on 02/07/2010 submitted explanation on 93 audit reports. However, the same is incomplete. These documents are filed on record as Annexure to the reply and perusal thereof reveals that what has been submitted as compliance is nothing but audit objection itself with some details. There is no answer to the objection as such. The respondent No.2 himself, therefore, has found that the compliance is incomplete and not as per the procedure. He has also pointed out that the Municipal Council has also passed the resolution to drop the audit paras. 14. There is no answer to the objection as such. The respondent No.2 himself, therefore, has found that the compliance is incomplete and not as per the procedure. He has also pointed out that the Municipal Council has also passed the resolution to drop the audit paras. 14. In para 6 of the said affidavit, compliances of 13 audit objections attended by the Municipal Council on 20/06/2011 have been again adversely commented upon. 15. The state of affairs, therefore, show that as per law, the State Government has conducted audit and more than 522 audit objections were found not satisfied from the year 1997 till 2006. The present writ petition is filed in public interest in 2009 and respondent No.2 has filed affidavit on 4th September, 2012. So even till 2012, these objections were not met with. On the contrary, the Municipal Council had audacity to pass a resolution to waive all audit objections. 16. We cannot countenance this conduct of the Municipal Council. Not only this, but inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in the matter also cannot be accepted. Respondent No.2 was definitely not helpless. Respondent no.2 could have resorted to powers given to it in “1965 Act” or even under the Bombay Local Fund Audit Act, 1930 and proceeded to find out delinquent and amount of surcharge and recovered it from the ex-officer or excouncillor of the Municipal Council. This has not been done till date. 17. Now, in 2017, it may be difficult for anybody to frame charge or fasten responsibility for whatever has been done in the year 1999 i.e. about 20 years back. Expiry of time in such matters prejudices public interest and helps the wrongdoers in escaping either unnoticed or unpunished. We find that respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 have succeeded to certain extent in doing it. We also find that respondent No.2 has not taken necessary steps in the matter though it was duty bound to do so. It has indirectly helped such delinquents to escape. 18. Insofar as levy of rain water harvesting charge is concerned, in absence of any definite reply affidavit on record and any specific entry in Section 105 of “1965 Act”, it is clear that such a demand could not have been made. It has indirectly helped such delinquents to escape. 18. Insofar as levy of rain water harvesting charge is concerned, in absence of any definite reply affidavit on record and any specific entry in Section 105 of “1965 Act”, it is clear that such a demand could not have been made. The Municipal Council could have come before this Court and pointed out that it had recovered that amount as deposit and issued receipts accordingly to the persons seeking permission to develop. The petitioners state that no such receipts showing the nature of amount as deposit, are issued. Thus, persons who have paid the amount are not aware that they are entitled to its refund. The fact that amount has not been refunded, may also indicate that the Municipal Council has not paid visit to the site where development has been carried out to find out compliances with rain water harvesting measures. Had compliance come on its record or had it issued Completion Certificate, the question of refund would then have definitely cropped up. The material on record does not throw any light, in this respect. 19. We, therefore, direct respondent Nos.4 and 5 to publish an advertisement in Local Daily having wide circulation in Wardha town within next four weeks pointing out that amount recovered by it towards rain water harvesting charge is in fact, a deposit and those who have complied with rain harvesting measures, can come to its office and seek refund. 20. However, we also direct the President and the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council to see that its Competent Officers visit all such sites where development is claimed to have been carried out to note such compliance. This exercise shall be carried out independently and completed within six months. 21. Insofar as levy and recovery or collection of land development charges is concerned, Section 124A of “1966 Act” shows that it can be assessed and demanded independently. The retrospective nature or arguments in relation thereto and fact that the land development charges can be levied and asked for only in absence of permission to develop already given in past demonstrate need to adopt case wise approach. Whenever a person approaches and seeks sanction to a building plan, if his plot is in approved layout, it is clear that no development charges in relation thereto can be demanded. Whenever a person approaches and seeks sanction to a building plan, if his plot is in approved layout, it is clear that no development charges in relation thereto can be demanded. Development charges in that event can be only in relation to building i.e. further development to be carried out on already developed plot. It appears from the order of this Court dated 21st September, 2011 in this case that an effort was made in that direction by this Court to find out whether the said charges have been recovered in respect of areas of old town where there has been no fresh development or in new areas where there has been fresh development. 22. The submission of the petitioners that the land development charges could not have been demanded, needs verification of facts. That verification is not possible in this public interest litigation. In one case, the Municipal Council has after satisfying itself about the impropriety of recovery of land development charges refunded it and later on, realized error committed by it in responding it. All these facts do show need of verification of facts in each case by Municipal Council before levy and also before refund. 23. It is apparent that remedy under Section 124G of “1966 Act” of filing an appeal is available to persons aggrieved by an order passed by an authority under Section 124E of “1966 Act”. Section 124E is on assessment and recovery of development charges. Thus, cases where there could not have been assessment at all and still development charges are levied and recovered, are also covered under Section 124E of “1966 Act”. 24. Hence, the grievance of the petitioners or of persons from whom such tax / charge has been recovered illegally, can form subject matter of appeal under Section 124G of “1966 Act”. Hence, we grant liberty to such individuals to file appeals under Section 124G of “1966 Act” as per law and seek refund by pointing out illegality of assessment. Case specific application of mind is possible thereon. 25. Coming back to the question of further action in the matter of 522 unattended audit objections, we find that this may be true in case of several local bodies in the State of Maharashtra. The reply affidavit filed by respondent No.2 itself shows casual approach on the part of the superior and responsible officers in such sensitive matters. 26. 25. Coming back to the question of further action in the matter of 522 unattended audit objections, we find that this may be true in case of several local bodies in the State of Maharashtra. The reply affidavit filed by respondent No.2 itself shows casual approach on the part of the superior and responsible officers in such sensitive matters. 26. In this situation, taking overall view of the matter, we direct respondent No.2 – State of Maharashtra to collect data from all local bodies in relation to pending audit objections like duration / period thereof and why compliances have not been made. This data shall then be looked into by the Secretary of State to find out how the transparency in the administration of local bodies and the State Government can be advanced by taking suitable remedial measures. This exercise shall be completed, within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order to respondent No.2. 27. Insofar as audit objections in case of respondent No.4 – Municipal Council are concerned, we direct respondent No.2 – State of Maharashtra to depute an officer not below the rank of Collector to look into the administration of respondent No.4 – Municipal Council from 1999 till date. The said officer shall be deputed within a period of four weeks from today and he shall look into relevant documents to find out surviving audit objections and other administrative lapses within next four weeks. 28. Respondents shall, thereafter contingent upon his report, take necessary steps as provided for in “1965 Act” against respondent no.4 or delinquent councillors and officers with it. 29. For noncompliance with 522 audit objections, we direct respondent No.2 to immediately proceed under the Bombay Local Fund Audit Act, 1930 and initiate steps to fasten individual responsibility against officers and elected office bearers. The surcharge shall be worked out, as per law and recoveries shall also be then initiated, as per outcome thereof. 30. We find that it is failure on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 4 to act diligently which has contributed to present situation. The situation could have been averted, had they been diligent. There is every reason to foresee attempt to defeat or avoid this exercise on their part. 31. 30. We find that it is failure on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 4 to act diligently which has contributed to present situation. The situation could have been averted, had they been diligent. There is every reason to foresee attempt to defeat or avoid this exercise on their part. 31. To monitor the compliance with these orders, we direct the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to submit compliance to the Registry of this Court within period stipulated supra. In default, the Registry shall list the disposed of petition before this Court. In said eventuality, the Court will be constrained to pass appropriate order against officers found guilty, for not acting diligently. 32. Accordingly, we make rule absolute in above terms and dispose of the present writ petition. No costs.