Sunday 24 October 2021

Whether Magistrate can entertain Municipal Appeal if appellant has failed to deposit necessary property tax?

  Rules made by this High Court under Article 227 relating to appeals under section 169 are pointed out by Petitioner. As per rule 4 the petition of appeal is required to be accompanied by original receipt showing that amount claimed by Municipal Council is deposited in Municipal Office. Rule 5 obliges Magistrate to call upon appellant to fulfill the requirement of rule 3 or rule 4 within such time not exceeding one-month and in default, Magistrate may dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute. Rule 6 contemplates issuance of notice to Municipal Council only thereafter. Thus, as per scheme of these rules, Magistrate cannot call upon Municipal Council to appear unless and until the amount of demand is shown to have been deposited with Municipal Council by producing original receipt before him. Form-B appended to these Rules in which the appeal is to be preferred again shows that it contains a declaration that the amount claimed by Municipal Council has been or has not been deposited by appellant in the office of Municipal Council. It further shows that original receipt issued by Municipal Council is one of the accompaniments of such appeal. There is no challenge to these provisions or Rules in present matter. However in the facts of present case, Petitioner municipal council has appeared before Magistrate and filed its objection on 19/4/2003 itself. It is therefore clear that in any case on said date the Appeal has reached the stage of hearing or consideration. Hence, thereafter Magistrate could not have proceeded further to deal with the Appeal as the amount of demand was not deposited and hence requirement of Section 170(c)(ii) was not satisfied. After 19/4/2003 Magistrate did not possess jurisdiction to entertain the appeal itself in view of this non-compliance. It is therefore clear that the Magistrate could not have granted any interim relief in said appeal on 4/6/2003. No interim orders could have been passed in an appeal which was not entertained.

2007(1) ALL MR 170


Municipal Council, Achalpur Vs. M/S. Shriram Saw Mill

Writ Petition No.3667 of 2006

6th November, 2006

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment