The statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Civil Judge against the bill issued by the Municipal Council is emphasized, and resort to alternative remedies such as writ petitions is discouraged when a more satisfactory solution is available in terms of the statute itself.

Judgment:

1. Heard on I.A. No. 12853/2013, which is an application for amendment of the petition. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner inter alia has mainly prayed that Section 172(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") be declared ultra vires the Constitution of India. For better understanding of the provision, we deem it proper to reproduce the complete Section 172. It reads as under:--

“172. Appeal to Civil Judge.--(1) Appeals, against any claim included in a bill presented in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder, be made to the Civil Judge, Class I, having jurisdiction over the Municipal area and if there be no Civil Judge, Class I, at the headquarters of the Municipality the Civil Judge, Class II having jurisdiction at such headquarters if there be no such Civil Judge, Class II at the headquarters to the Civil Judge, Class II having jurisdiction and in case of more than one such Civil Judges at the headquarters having jurisdiction, as the case may be, to such one of them as the District Judge may specify.

(2) No such appeal shall be heard and determined unless--

(a) the appeal is brought within 15 days next after presentation of the bill complained of;

(b) an application, in writing, stating the ground on which the claim of Council is disputed, has been made to the Council in the case of a rate on building or land within the time fixed in the notice given in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder or of the assessment or alteration thereof, according to which the bill issprepared;

(c) the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him in the Municipal office.”

2. The petitioner is a Government of India undertaking and has its unit at Malanjkhand. It extracts copper ore from the mines, which is sent to concentrator plant for getting copper concentrate. Thereafter, the concentrate is sent for final production at Khetri (Rajasthan) and Ghatshila (Jharkhand). Respondent No. 1, Municipal Council, Malanjkhand, is a local self-Government constituted under Article 243-Q of the Constitution. It claims to have right to impose Terminal Tax on the goods exported from the limits under Section 127(6)(n) of the Act. The Terminal Tax is levied in accordance with the provisions of The Terminal Tax (Assessment and Collection) on the Goods Exported from Madhya Pradesh Municipal Limits Rules, 1996 (in short, "the Rules"). The Terminal Tax is to be deposited till tenth day of every month as per Rule 4 of the Rules and under Rule 7 in the event of default, a surcharge at the rate of five per cent per month is payable and in case of submission of wrong return the amount equal to ten times of the tax is made payable. Any party, aggrieved with the claim made by respondent No. 1, has a remedy of filing an appeal before the Civil Judge having jurisdiction over the Municipal area under Section 172 of the Act (quoted above). The appeal, however, cannot be heard and determined unless the amount claimed is deposited in the Municipal Office in view of Sub-section (2)(c).

3. In Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1992 SC 2279, the constitutional validity of an identical provision Section 170(b) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was challenged, but it was held to be intra vires by the Supreme Court. Therefore, having regard to the decision of Supreme Court in Shyam Kishore (supra), the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner has fairly not pressed the application for amendment.

4. The application is accordingly dismissed.

5. Also heard on admission.

6. Respondent No. 1, on coming to a conclusion that the petitioner submitted wrong returns in respect to Terminal Tax for the years 2006-07 up to 2011-12, issued a bill dated 16-10-2012 of Rs. 1,77,57,70,395.00. The petitioner, instead of filing an appeal under Section 172 of the Act before the Civil Judge, Class I, Baihar, has filed the present petition.

7. It is to be noted that for