( 1 ) THE question that has come for consideration in this case is whether the District Collector, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 258 (1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (for brevity 'the Act'), can interfere with the demand notice issued by the nagarpalika under Sec. 132 (2) of the Act, for recovery of property tax.

( 2 ) THE Executive Committee of Khambhat Nagarpalika passed a Resolution no. 190 assessing 198 property holders and demanding property tax, which included the second respondent as well. Before enforcing the levy of tax, opportunity was given to all the property holders to file their objection. Consequently, second respondent filed his objection on 21-3-2006. Most of the property holders paid the tax demanded, however, some of the property holders filed objections. Objection filed by the second respondent was considered by the Nagarpalika and the same was rejected. Thereafter, bills at Annexure "b" collectively were issued to the second respondent, demanding property tax outstanding prior to 31-3-2007 and for the period from 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2008. In spite of receipt of the bills, no amount was paid by the second respondent. Consequently, Nagarpalika issued attachment warrant to second respondent Trust, in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 133 (1) of the Act. Second respondent then deposited an amount of Rs. 1,65,048/- and Rs. 4,55,359/- for the entire period of assessment made by the Nagarpalika.

( 3 ) SECOND respondent then preferred an Appeal No. 9 of 2008 before the district Collector, as provided under Sec. 258 of the Act, challenging Resolution no. 190 dated 10-3-2006 passed by the Nagarpalika, after a period of more than two years. Few others however, approached the Judicial Magistrate under sec. 138 of the Act. District Collector however, entertained the appeal preferred by the Trust and issued notice to the Nagarpalika. District Collector also issued an order on 13-6-2008 directing Nagarpalika to hand over charge of the Chief officer to Mamlatdar, Khambhat. District Collector then granted stay of the resolution dated 10-3-2006 and directed the Nagarpalika to appear before him on 25-6-2008. Aggrieved by the above mentioned orders, Nagarpalika has approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the District Collector, exercising powers under Sec. 258 of the Act, and also for the consequential reliefs, contending that the District Collector has no jurisdiction under Sec. 258 of the Act to interfere with the actions taken by the Nagarpalika for levy of property tax.

( 4 ) LEARNED single Judge passed an interim order on 23-6-2008 expressing a prima facie view that District Collector has no power under Sec. 258 of the act to interfere with the demand of tax to be levied by the Nagarpalika. Aggrieved by the same, second respondent has come up with this appeal. When the matter came up for hearing to day, we called for file of Special Civil Application no. 8187 of 2008, and heard Counsel at length.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant Mr. Prakash K. Jani submitted that the District Collector has got ample powers under Sec. 258 (1)of the Act, to interfere with the order passed by the Nagarpalika, if it is unlawful. Learned Counsel submitted that appellant is a Charitable Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, and at no point of time nagarpalika had imposed any property tax on the properties owned and occupied by the Trust. Learned Counsel submitted that when the Nagarpalika has acted contrary to the provisions of the Act, the Collector can always examine the legality or otherwise of the orders, in exercise of the powers conferred under sec. 258 of the Act. Learned Counsel also submitted that the Nagarpalika has also not followed the mandatory provisions of Secs. 101, 102, 103 of Chapter xiii before demanding tax. In support of the contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on the d