The right to appeal is a creature of statute and can be regulated or restricted by the legislature. Restrictions on the right to appeal are valid if they are reasonable and in the public interest.

Headnote:
BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - SECTION 217 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - RESTRICTIONS ON RIGHT TO APPEAL - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 19(1)(F), 19(5), 31, 265 - REASONABLE RESTRICTION - PUBLIC INTEREST - AUTHORITY OF LAW - DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY - LEVY OF TAX - JUDICIAL DOMAIN - RETROSPECTIVITY - PENAL PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, holders of immovable property in Bombay, challenged the constitutional validity of section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as amended, which imposed restrictions on the right to appeal against rateable value and property tax. They argued that the amended section violated Articles 19(1)(f), 19(5), 31, and 265 of the Constitution and impinged upon the judicial sphere.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the amended section 217 was constitutionally valid. It found that the right to appeal is a creature of statute and can be regulated or restricted by the legislature. The restrictions imposed by the amended section were reasonable and in the public interest, as they aimed to secure the Corporation's revenue and prevent abuse of the right to appeal. The court also held that the requirement of depositing the disputed tax or rateable value as a precondition to filing and hearing an appeal was not a levy or collection of tax in contravention of Article 265, but a valid regulatory measure.
Issues: 1. Whether section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as amended, is constitutionally valid? 2. Whether the restrictions imposed by the amended section on the right to appeal are reasonable and in the public interest? 3. Whether the requirement of depositing the disputed tax or rateable value as a precondition to filing and hearing an appeal is a levy or collection of tax in contravention of Article 265?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to appeal is a creature of statute and can be regulated or restricted by the legislature. 2. The restrictions imposed by the amended section 217 are reasonable and in the public interest, as they aim to secure the Corporation's revenue and prevent abuse of the right to appeal. 3. The requirement of depositing the disputed tax or rateable value as a precondition to filing and hearing an appeal is not a levy or collection of tax in contravention of Article 265, but a valid regulatory measure.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the constitutional validity of section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as amended, was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT - S.P. BHARUCHA, J.:---The only question that must be determined in this petition is section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as amended Constitutionally valid ?

2. The petitioners are the holders of immoveable property situated at New Marine Lines, Bombay. The petitioners received form the Municipal Corporation, the first respondent, notices fixing the rateable value of the said property. The petitioner complained of the fixation of the rateable value and an order was passed upon that complaint. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred an appeal under the then unamended section 217 to the Chief Judge, Court of small causes at Bombay who is the person designated under the provisions of the Act to hear such appeals. The appeal is pending and is part-heard. On 22nd September, 1975 during the pendency of the appeal, an Ordinance was issued called the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Amendment Ordinance 1975, which amended, inter alia, and section 217. The Ordinance was replaced by an Act.

3. The amended section 217 is challenged in the petition the ground that it contravenes the provisions of Articles 19,31 and 265 of the Constitution of India and also on the ground that by enacting it the legislature impinged upon the judicial sphare. The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus to fix at the figure mentioned in the petition the rateable value of the said property. The rateable value of the said property is the subject matter of the pending appeal before the Chief Judge and it is agreed between the parties that it should be left to be determined in the appeal.

4. The relevant provisions of section 217, as unamended and as amended, need to be set out.

Section 217(1)(2)(d) unamended.

"217(1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against any rateable value or tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court.

(2) But no such appeal shall be heard by the said Chief Judge unless---

(d) in the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made against a rateable value after a bill for any property tax assessed upon such value has been served on the appellant, the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him with the Commissioner."

Section 217(1) as amended :---

(2) But no such appeal shall be entertained by the said Chief Judge, unless-

(d) in the case of an appeal against a tax, or is the case of an appeal made against a rateable value the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant, or the amount of the tax chargeable on the basis of the disputed rateable value, up to the date of filing of the appeal, has been deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner."

(3) In the case of any appeal entertained by the Chief Judge, but not heard by him, before the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Act, 1975, the Chief Judge shall not hear and decide such appeal, unless the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant, or the amount of the tax chargeable on the basis of the disputed rateable value, as the case may be, upto the date of filing the appeal, has been deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner within thirty days from the date of publication of a general notice by the Commissioner in this behalf in the local newspapers. The Commissioner shall simultaneously serve on each such appellant a notice under sections 484 and 485 and other relevant provisions of this Act, for intimating the amount to be deposited by the appellant with him.

(4) As far as possible, within fifteen days from the expiry of the period of thirty days prescribed under sub-section (3), the Commissioner shall intimate to the Chief Judge the names and other particul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document