Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—

1. In this writ petition, there is a challenge to the amended Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DMC Act’) on two grounds. First of all, it is contended that the proviso to Section 169(1) makes the remedy of appeal to the Municipal Taxation Tribunal illusory inasmuch as it requires that the full amount of the property tax be paid “before” the filing of an appeal. Secondly, the provisions of the amended Section 169 are inconsistent with Section 170 (b). The said challenge has arisen in the context of an order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the Municipal Taxation Tribunal, Delhi, which has, refused to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner had not deposited the full amount of the property tax as was due till 31.03.2004. The latter date has been taken as the terminal point inasmuch as the demand by the respondents was raised by virtue of a Bill dated January 2008 for the period 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2004.

2. Let us examine the facts. By an order dated 24.01.2000, the Joint Assessor and Collector, under the unamended DMC Act determined the rateable value of the property in question at Rs. 1,74,500/- with effect from 01.04.1998. An appeal was filed immediately thereafter and a sum of Rs. 55,000/- was deposited so that the appeal may be heard and decided. The appeal was decided on 18.01.2002, whereby the order dated 24.01.2000 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Joint Assessor and Collector for re-determination. In the meanwhile, the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act of 2003 came into force on 01.08.2003. New Section 169 was inserted in place of the old Section 169. However, Section 170 continued as before. On 18.01.2008, the remanded case came to be decided and the rateable value was redetermined at Rs. 2,52,050/- with effect from 01.04.1998. On 18.02.2008, the petitioner sought to file an appeal for the year 1998-99 before the District Judge. But, that was not accepted and the petitioner was directed to file the same before the Municipal Taxation Tribunal. The petitioner filed the appeal on the same date, that is, on 18.02.2008 before the said Tribunal. On 25.02.2008, the petitioner deposited a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the MCD to make up the tax amount for the year 1998-99, which, according to the petitioner was the base year. By virtue of the impugned order dated 30.05.2008, the Tribunal directed that the entire tax, that is, the sum of Rs. 4,44,600/- for the entire period 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2004 be paid before the appeal could be entertained.

3. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition [WP(C) 4683/2008]. By virtue of the order dated 07.07.2008, a Division Bench of this court granted stay of the proceedings before the said Tribunal.

4. The primary and main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proviso to Section 169(1) of the DMC Act, which makes it mandatory to pay the full amount of the property tax before filing any appeal, is too harsh and onerous a condition thereby making the right of appeal illusory. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the said provision is unconstitutional and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned counsel submitted that the reasonable approach should be the one as laid down by the Supreme Court in Shyam Kishore and Others v. MCD: 1993 (1) SCC 22 while upholding the validity of Section 170(b) of the DMC Act. Secondly, it was submitted that the proviso to Section 169 (1) of the DMC Act and Section 170(b) [postamendment of 2003] are in conflict and cannot exist together. Reliance was placed on Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay and Others: 1974 (2) SCC 402 to submit that the proviso to Section 169(1) being the harsher and more onerous provision must give way to Section 170(b). Thirdly, it was contended that in any event, and, in the alternative, in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document