( 1 ) THESE writ petitions raise important and interestingquestions of law, which can be formulated as follows ;

(1) Whether the deposit of tax amount under Section 170 (b) of thedelhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1937 (herdnafier referred to as the Act ) is a condition precedent for hearing or determination ofthe appeal but also for filing of memorandum of appeal ? (2) Whether the District Judge baa a discretion to grant stay of thedisputed amount or dispense with the condition of predeposit ofthe amount in appeal, with or without condi iion, in the office ofcorporation ? Further what is the amount in deposit in appeal ? (3) Incuse it is held that the deposit tax amount under Section,170 (b) of the Act is a condition precedent for hearing or determination of the appeal and the District Judge has no discretion. to grant stay of the deposit of tax amonot and dispense with thecondition of pro-deposit of amount with or without conditions,whether such provision is ultra vires ?

( 2 ) IN Civil Writ Petition No. 148/89 the matter was referred by thedivision Bench of this Court on 17/01/1989 to the Full Bench forthe reason that certain other writ petitions on such questions have beenadmitted, although the judgment of the Division Bench comprising of V. S. Deshpande and Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ. in Civil Writ Petition No. 963/75panchsheela House Building Cooperative v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Panchsheela case ) already covers some issuesinvolved. Therefore, Panchsheela case requires reconsideration.

( 3 ) IN Panchsheela case the Division Bench of this Court has taken aview that an appeal is filed to be heard. On constructions of Sections 169to 171 of the Act, the deposit of the amount is a condition precedent to thehearing of the appeal and an appeal cannot be entertained or filed unlessthe condition is complied with. The appellant cannot insist on the appellatecourt receiving the memo of appeal but disabling itself from bearing theappeal by the mere refusal of the appellant to deposit the amount.

( 4 ) SIMILAR questions arose in Civil Writ Petition No. 2799/87 L. K. Goyal v. M. CD. which was dismissed by a Division Bench of tbi Court comprisingof N. N. Goswamy and Arun B. Saharya. JJ on 25-9-1987 by relyingupon Panchsheela case In S. K. Verma v. Municipal Corporation, Delhireported in 1988 RLR 487 D. P. Wadhwa, J. also expressed the same view byfollowing Panchsheela case and dismissed the matter. However. Wad, J. inpunj Sons (P) Ltd v. Municipal Corporation reported in 1982 RLR 247 hastaken. a conflicting view. He has held that an appeal under Section 169could not be heard or determined unless the amount, as directed by thedistrict judge, was deposited by the appellant However, the district judgehad a discretion to direct deposit of an admitted amount or disputed amountor a part of the total tax amount, as directed by the district judge, wasdeposited by the appellant. However, the district judge bad a discretion todirect deposit of an admilled amount or disputed amount or a part of thetotal tax amount, with or without conditions. According to him the literalinterpretation of Section 170 (b) of the Act could perhaps lead to the resultnot intended by the scheme of taxation under the Act. In such a situationsection 457 read with Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure can beipressed in service to resolve the conflicting interest of the assessees and thecorporation. The District Court can in exercise of the discretion of Appellate Authority direct the appropriate sum to be deposited by assessee beforethe appeal is heard. In a given case it may be proper to direct the depositof an admitted amount In another case, the interest of justice would beserved by directing deposit of the disputed amount. The exercise of thediscretion is necessary both in the interest of the assessee and the Corporation and to make Section 170 workable.

( 5 ) IT appears the Panchsheela case was not brought to the