1. The challenge in this petition is to the following two orders:

(a) The order dated 13 July 2011 made by the Corporation fixing rateable value at Rs.11,94,935 NPA with effect from 1 April 2008 in respect of the petitioners' property;

(b) The order dated 11 May 2012 made by the Small Causes Court at Bombay (Appellate Authority) imposing the condition upon the petitioners to pay the entire amount of property taxes, for the purposes of lifting the attachment of petitioners property. This order has been made in the appeal instituted by the petitioners impugning the order dated 13 July 2011 made by the Corporation.

2. There is no dispute that the petitioners have instituted an appeal under Section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (said Act) against the order dated 13 July 2011 made by the Corporation determining the rateble value and demanding taxes based thereupon. Section 217 of the said Act, inter alia, provides that no appeal shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority unless the amount of disputed tax claimed the appellant, or the amount of tax chargeable on the basis of the disputable rateble value upto the date of filing of the appeal, has been deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner and such appeal is accompanied by a receipt of the full amount of tax to which the appeal relates. Subsection (2A) of the Section 217 of the said Act provides that whereas the appeal is not filed in accordance with the provisions of clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (2), it shall be liable to be summarily dismissed. It is sub-clause (d) of sub-section (2) which provides for pre-deposit as to entertainment of appeal under Section 217 of the said Act.

3. In the present case, although the appeal was instituted by the petitioners some time in August 2011, till date, the petitioners have not deposited the tax or tax chargeable on the basis of disputable rateable value. It is the case of the petitioners that such pre-deposit would apply only at the stage of entertainment of the appeal and therefore in the meanwhile, the petitioners are entitled to agitate issues of interim reliefs with regard to the lifting of attachment, even without making a pre-deposit which is mandated by the provisions of section 217(2) of the said Act. Perhaps on basis of such contentions, which have been assiduously pursued, the petitioners have managed to stall the recovery of tax chargeable till date.

4. Ultimately, the Corporation issued orders of attachment of the petitioners' property, for the purposes of recovery of arrears of taxes. At that stage, the petitioners applied to the Appellate Authority in the appeal which is even yet to be numbered for grant of interim reliefs. By the order dated 11 May 2012, the Appellate Authority has in fact granted interim relief, subject however to the condition that the petitioners' deposit the entire arrears of tax with the Corporation.

5. It is at this stage, that the present petition has been instituted. The submission in the present petition is that the very order dated 13 July 2011 determining the rateable value and which is the basis for demand of tax, is without jurisdiction and in such a situation there is no bar to this Court entertaining a writ petition, despite the fact that the petitioners have already instituted an appeal to question the order dated 13 July 2011. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in case of Rialto Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ors. (1998(1) Bom.C.R.397) to submit that the petition was entertained despite appeal having been instituted, particularly as this Court found that the assessment and demand of taxes was totally contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. M/s. Polychem Ltd. (AIR 1974 SC 1779). It was also contended that the rateable value, in the present case has been fixed by reference to Ready Reckoner under the Stamp Act, whic