IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the right to appeal can be conditioned by statute, and such conditions do not inherently violate constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Petitioner, who operates a Shopping Mall within the jurisdiction of the Pune Cantonment Board, has instituted this Petition seeking the following substantive reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby declaring the provisions of Section 96 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 as ultra vires.

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the individual provisional bills dated 07.03.2013 issued by Respondent No. 3 u/s 99 of the Cantonment Act, 2006.

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the consequential demand notices dated 18.06.2013 issued by Respondent No. 3 u/s 100 of the Cantonment Act, 2006.

(d) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to fix the annual ratable value for the triennial 2011-14 after hearing and deciding the objections of the petitioner.

(e) That until and unless the respondent no. 2 and 3 do not fix the annual ratable value for the triennial 2011-14 after considering the objections of the petitioner, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the individual provisional bills dated 07.03.2013 issued by Respondent No. 3 u/s 99 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 and also the consequential demand notices dated 18.06.2013 issued by Respondent No. 3 u/s 100 of the Cantonment Act, 2006.

3. Rule was issued in this Petition on 21 August 2013. Certain ad-interim directions were also issued. By further order dated 28 March 2014, two Civil Applications instituted by the Petitioner seeking interim relief were disposed of.

4. The operative portion of the order dated 28 March 2014, by which some limited interim relief was granted to the Petitioner subject to the Petitioner depositing the full amount of tax for the triennial 2011-12 to 2013-14 at the rate applicable for the triennial 2008-09 to 2010-11, reads as follows:

13. In view of the above, we dispose of the two civil applications with the following directions:

(a) The petitioner shall file an appeal to the District Court, Pune challenging the assessment for the triennial 2011- 12 to 2013-14 as per the order dated 25 October 2013 within 2 weeks from today. If such appeal is filed by the petitioner within 3 weeks from today, the District Court, Pune shall entertain the appeal without raising objection on the ground of limitation.

(b) As regards the petitioner's appeal for the 2008-09 to 2010-11, the District Court, Pune shall hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within 4 months from today, i.e. by 31 July 2014.

(c) The petitioner will deposit the full amount of tax for the triennial 2011-12 to 2013-14 at the rate applicable for the triennial 2008-09 to 2010-11 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The amount shall be deposited in three equal instalments to be paid by 25 April 2014, 25 May 2014 and 25 June 2014.

(d) After the appeal for the triennial 2008-09 to 2010-11 is decided by the District Court, the District Court will pass further orders as regards tax to be deposited by the petitioner for the triennial 2011-12 to 2013-14 as per order dated 25 October 2013 during the pendency of the appeal before it after taking into consideration the outcome of the appeal for the triennial 2008-09 to 2010-11.

14. It is clarified that this interim protection is upto 31 July 2014 by which time the District Court shall hear and decide the appeal for the triennial 2008-09 to 2010-11. Thereafter the District Court will pass the appropriate orders for the triennial 2011-12 to 2013-14.

5. The Appeal instituted by the Petitioner in pursuance of the liberty granted by the above order dated 28 March 2014 has already been disposed of. The same is the subject matter of an independent challenge in a separate Writ Petition. Therefore, Mr. K.J. Presswalla, the learned counsel for Respondents 2 to 4 (Cantonment Board), did submit that the r