JUDGMENT : S.M. Modak, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by forthwith by consent. 2. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) are granted towards consideration of land acquired by the Planning authority as per the Development Plan. The holder of such rights gets an authority over the Floor Space Index (FSI) certified by the Certificate. The holder may himself utilize the FSI or transfer it to some third person. In petitions before us, the petitioners have been issued TDR Certificates by Amravati Municipal Corporation. They have surrendered their respective lands for construction of a road earmarked in the Development Plan of the corporation and executed sale deeds too. 3. Prior to issuing these certificates, Corporation insisted on deposit of Scrutiny Fee from the petitioners. They have also paid the amounts under protest. The details are as follows : Sr.No. Particulars Amount Paid on Page no. 01. W.P. No.71 of 2018 Scrutiny Fee 11,68,200/- 03-10-2016 201 02. W.P. No.69 of 2018 Scrutiny Fee 2,83,800/- 03-10-2016 201 03. W.P. No.439 of 2018 Scrutiny Fee 1,98,000/- 03-10-2016 201 4. W.P. No.595 of 2018 Scrutiny Fee 2,18,200/- 03-11-2016 201 It will be material to consider the background in which the Corporation has levied the scrutiny fee. SCRUTINY FEE 4. This scrutiny fee was levied by the Corporation as per the Resolution dated 20-01-2015 passed in General Body. We have read that Resolution. There is Resolution No.5. Serial No.5 from that Resolution says about TDR Transfer Fee. It says about two contingencies. They are as follows : (1) at the time of issuing the certificate when reserved land is acquired. (2) when such TDR certificate is transferred and Corporation has taken note of it. For these two contingencies, it is the transfer fee, at the rate of Rs.100/per sq.mtr or 1 % of the market value (as per ready reckoner) whichever is more which is recoverable. It is very clear that the terminology of scrutiny fee is not used at serial no.5 of the said Resolution. OLD REGULATIONS 5. It was passed in pursuance to the provisions of Rule No.6.6.2.2 of the Development Control Regulation. Learned Advocate for the Corporation brought to our notice that clause. This clause empowers the Municipal Commissioner to impose conditions by a special written permission. There is a dispute about continuation of this provision after new Development Control Regulations came into force on 20-09-2016. It was passed in pursuance to the provisions of Rule No.6.6.2.2 of the Development Control Regulation. Learned Advocate for the Corporation brought to our notice that clause. This clause empowers the Municipal Commissioner to impose conditions by a special written permission. There is a dispute about continuation of this provision after new Development Control Regulations came into force on 20-09-2016. The petitioners contend that once the new Regulations have come into force, the Corporation has got no right to recover it. Whereas, Corporation contends that they have got right to recover it on the basis of Saving Clause of the new Regulations. We have heard learned Sr. Advocate Shri Gilda for the petitioners and learned Advocate Shri Chandurkar and Shri Mahalle for the respondents. It will be material to consider the provisions of new Control Regulations. NEW DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS 6. They are called as Standardized Development Control and Promotion Regulations (hereinafter called “new Regulations”). They came into force on 20-09-2016 (Gazette date). They are applicable to all D-Class Municipal Corporations in Maharashtra. It is undisputed fact that new Regulations do not contain a provision for levying scrutiny fee. Instead, it contains a Clause 40.6.9 about imposition of “Infrastructure Improvement Charge”. Clause no.40 deals with Transferable Development Rights. This charge is a 5% of construction cost. We do not find any connection in between this charge and and the scrutiny fee being levied which is under challenge. 7. These new Regulations were accepted in the General Body of the Corporation on 16-11-2016. Earlier to, these new Regulations, Government of Maharashtra has declared TDR policy and published it as per the Notification dated 28-01-2016. It will be material to consider the Office Note and endorsement dated 19-11-2016 sanctioned by the Commissioner. There is an Administrative Order dated 19-11-2016 issued on the basis of the Office Note. They are filed along with civil application in respective writ petitions by the respondents. Office Note and the sanction dated 19-11-2016. 8. We have read it. There are two subjects covered by it. One is about levying infrastructure improvement Charge as per new Regulations. We are not concerned with the said levy in this petition. Second part says about following points- 1. The scrutiny fee levied as per the Resolution dated 20-02-2015 at the rate of Rs. 100 sq.mtr is cancelled as per this order. 2. There are two subjects covered by it. One is about levying infrastructure improvement Charge as per new Regulations. We are not concerned with the said levy in this petition. Second part says about following points- 1. The scrutiny fee levied as per the Resolution dated 20-02-2015 at the rate of Rs. 100 sq.mtr is cancelled as per this order. 2. The said cancellation is applicable to the building permission proposals filed from 29-01-2016. We have also read the office note prepared in support of the above order. It says about following issues : (a) Infrastructure improvement charges are included in new Regulation. (b) The scrutiny fee be cancelled from 29-01-2016 in view of new imposition of infrastructure improvement charges. The Commissioner as per his letter dated 08-02-2017 reiterated the contents of their insistence for levying the scrutiny fee to building proposals submitted earlier to 19-11-2016. Comparison in between Old-V-New Regulation 9. There is difference in the provision of new Regulations and the Regulations in force earlier. The scrutiny fee was levied as per the old Regulations. No specific provision in that regard from the old Regulations was pointed out to us. They were agreed to be levied as per the Resolution dated 20-01-2015, passed by the Corporation as per Clause No.6.6.2.2. As stated above, there is no provision for scrutiny fee in the new Regulations. The new Regulations have come into force on 20-09-2016 (Gazetted date). 10. The Corporation justified their action on the basis of saving clause contained in the old Regulations. It is reproduced as below : “v” Savings “Not withstanding anything contained herein, any permission granted or any action taken under the regulations in force prior to these regulations shall be valid and continue to be so valid, unless otherwise specified in these regulations. Provided that, permissions granted earlier shall be eligible for renewal as per the provisions of the Act. Provided further that, the words “action taken” in this regulation shall also include the issuance of demand note for granting the development permission.” 11. According to the Corporation, the act of recovery of scrutiny fee is saved in view of this saving clause. Whereas the petitioner disputes it for the reason that the scrutiny fees were recovered from them after new Regulations came into force. We agree with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. According to the Corporation, the act of recovery of scrutiny fee is saved in view of this saving clause. Whereas the petitioner disputes it for the reason that the scrutiny fees were recovered from them after new Regulations came into force. We agree with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. From the record nothing is pointed out to us that the scrutiny fees paid on different dates as mentioned in the table were recovered as per the action taken earlier to 20-09-2016. Neither petitioners come with the case that the proposal for building permission is submitted nor the respondents contend that such proposals were submitted by the petitioners in their respective cases. So there is no justification for reliance on the saving clause. 12. There is one more reason for disallowing the claim of the Corporation for levy of scrutiny fee. Their office order dated 19-11-2016 says about cancellation of scrutiny fee for building permission proposal submitted after 29-01-2016. The petitioners have paid the scrutiny fees on respective dates and that is after 29-01-2016. We understand the importance of date 29-01-2016. The Government has approved the policy for transfer of development rights as per the Notification dated 28-01-2016 and said policy was included in new Regulations. 13. It is important to note that when the Government has finalized the new Regulations, the provision for levying scrutiny fee at the time of issuance of transfer of development rights certificate was not incorporated in it. In stead, Government incorporated the provision for levying infrastructure improvement charge. There is reason to believe that the scrutiny fee provision is incorporated at local level by taking recourse to Clause No.6.6.2.2 of the old Regulations. As the name indicates new Regulations are described as standardized Development Control and Promotion Regulations. One of the purposes may be to lay down a standardized procedure. No similarity in between 'Infrastructure Improvement Charge and Scrutiny Fee' is pointed out to us. But, logically we find that once this charge is imposed, scrutiny fee as per old Regulations cannot be recovered. That may be the reason for omitting provision for levy of scrutiny fee in new Regulations. So on no count the claim of the Corporation for levying scrutiny fee can be justified. Judgments 14. But, logically we find that once this charge is imposed, scrutiny fee as per old Regulations cannot be recovered. That may be the reason for omitting provision for levy of scrutiny fee in new Regulations. So on no count the claim of the Corporation for levying scrutiny fee can be justified. Judgments 14. Learned Advocate Shri Gilda relied upon a judgment in the case of Kisanrao Manikrao Khopade and another vs. Municipal Council, Dhule and another reported in AIR 1992 Bom. 249 . The issue of levy of betterment charges at the time of sanction of lay out plan was involved. It was levied by the Municipality by passing Resolution. When it was challenged, the Municipal Council tried to support it on various grounds. It was turned down. The provisions of Sections 183 and 328 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 were considered. It deals with the responsibility on the person to inform the council about the lay out and the responsibility on the Council to execute the work in case of default and to recover the expenses. The Council took shelter of the standardized building byelaws. The Hon'ble High Court observed thus 'the Municipal Council cannot make any demand contrary to the provisions of law and the byelaws. Ultimately, the demand for betterment charges was set aside. 15. We agree that the similar principle is applicable to the facts before us. The facts and circumstances do not justify levy of scrutiny fee and the amount needs to be returned to the petitioner. Disputed Questions of Fact 16. The respondents took objection to the grant of relief in a Writ Petition by this Court. There is an objection as to the maintainability on the ground of disputed questions of fact. Our attention is brought to a notice issued by the petitioners under Section 487 of Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. It is contended that remedy of civil suit is available. 17. The Corporation relied upon observation in the case of Chief General Manager, Telecom vs. V.N. Enterprises, reported at 1995 (2) BC 630 . We do not think that the ratio laid down in this case will be helpful to the respondents. Orissa High Court directed the appellants to pay a certain sum of money by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We do not think that the ratio laid down in this case will be helpful to the respondents. Orissa High Court directed the appellants to pay a certain sum of money by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When there was challenge to this order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order was modified. It was confirmed for the undisputed amount and for the disputed amount it was left to be decided by the Civil Court. 18. In that case there is a dispute about certain amount, whereas in this case, there is a dispute about levy of scrutiny fee. The right to levy the scrutiny fee can be decided on the basis of applicable rules and the documents not in dispute. Hence, the ratio in above mentioned case will not come to the rescue of the respondents. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the respondents' objection. The issues raised can certainly be gone into by this Court in a Writ Petition. 19. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment in the case of S.J.S. Business Enterprises Ltd vs. State of Bihar and others reported at (2004) 7 SCC 166 and more particularly paragraph 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with various contingencies involving filing of suit and simultaneous filing of writ petitions. The contingencies and observations are as follows : a If alternate remedies already availed It would not be appropriate for the Court to entertain writ petition. b When party has already moved the High Court under Article 226 but failed to obtain any relief and then moved an application under Article 32. Normally Court will not entertain the application. c In parallel jurisdiction the order is not speaking one /matter has been disposed of on some other ground. This Court in a suitable case entertain petition Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed : “But the existence of such remedy does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with the mater itself if it is in a position to do so on the basis of the affidavits filed”. 20. These observations are perfectly applicable to the facts before us. The issues involved before us are of such a nature which can be decided by considering the rules and undisputed documents. Hence, we reject the objection taken on behalf of respondents. About Final Order 21. 20. These observations are perfectly applicable to the facts before us. The issues involved before us are of such a nature which can be decided by considering the rules and undisputed documents. Hence, we reject the objection taken on behalf of respondents. About Final Order 21. The petitioners through his learned Senior Advocate Shri Gilda has relinquished his claim of interest over the amount of scrutiny fee paid by the respondents. The respondents through their Advocates have claimed for grant of time to refund the amount in case this Court will allow the petition. Interest can certainly be awarded if amount is not refunded in time. We are inclined to grant three months time. Hence, the order: ORDER (1) The petitions are partly allowed. (2) The communication dated 08-02-2017 by the Commissioner of respondent no.1 thereby refusing the request of petitioners for refund of scrutiny fee is set aside. (3) The respondents are directed to refund the scrutiny fees of Rs.11,68,200/( WP No.71 of 2018), Rs.2,83,800/( WP No.69 of 2018), Rs.1,98,000/( WP No.439 of 2018 and Rs.2,18,200/( WP No.595 of 2018) to the petitioners within three months from the date of order. If the respondents fail to refund the amount in time, as stated above, they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% to the petitioners from the date of failure till realization. (4) There is no order about present interest and costs. (5) Civil Applications from respective Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.