By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 6th September 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane rejecting the application filed by the petitioners herein for waiver of condition of deposit of disputed tax amount under Section 406(2)(e) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short “the said Act”).

2. A short question that arises in this writ petition is whether the petitioners are required to deposit penalty as well as interest also along with the property tax as per demand as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal filed by an assessee under Section 406 (2)(e) of the said Act or not. The relevant portion of Section 406 of the said Act reads as under :-

“406. Appeals when and to whom to lie.

(1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against any reteable value 3[or the capital value, as the case may be,] or tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Judge.

(2) No such appeal [shall be entertained] unless–

(a) it is brought within fifteen days after the accrual of the cause of complaint ;

(b) in the case of an appeal against a reteable value [or the capital value, as the case may be,] a complaint has previously been made to the Commissioner as provided under this Act and such complaint has been disposed of ;

(c) in the case of an appeal against any tax [including interest and penalty imposed] in respect of which provision exists under this Act for a complaint to be made to the Commissioner against the demand, such complaint has previously been made and disposed of ;

(d) in the case of an appeal against any amendment made in the assessment book for property taxes during the official year, a complaint has been made by the person aggrieved within [twenty- one days] after the first received notice of such amendment and his complaint has been disposed of ;

(e) in the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made against a rateable value [or the capital value, as the case may be] [the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant, or the amount of the tax chargeable on the basis of the dispute reteable value up to the date of filing the appeal, has been deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner].

3. The petitioners provide various telecommunication services including National Long Distance services, International Long Distance services, Internet services on all India basis. The respondent no.1 Corporation is constituted under the provisions of the said Act for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the said Act. The respondent no.1 had issued a property tax bill dated 30th April 2015 for the bill period 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017 demanding various amounts including the amount towards penalty under Section 267A of the said Act. The petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court. The respondent no.1 had issued a demand notice dated 6th January 2017 seeking to recover the amount of Rs.21.72 crores from the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the said demand notice dated 6th January 2017 by filing a writ petition bearing No.1636 of 2017 in this Court. The said bill include the demand for penalty and interest also.

4. By an order dated 23rd February 2017, this Court dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that there was an efficacious alternate remedy by way of statutory appeal provided under Section 406 of the said Act. The petitioners thereafter preferred 80 appeals impugning the said assessment bill and the notice of demand. The petitioners also filed an appeal on 29th March 2017 and also filed an application for waiver of the pre-condition of deposit of the disputed tax amount for the duration 1st April 2016 till 31st March 2017 under Section 406(2) (e) of the said Act. The said application was opposed by the respondent no.1 by filing an affidavit-in-reply on 31st July 2017. On 6th September 2017, the learn