TAJ MAHAL HOTEL LUCKNOW Vs. LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.12.1997 passed by XVth Addl. District Judge, Lucknow dismissing the application for grant/extension of interim order in Misc. Appeal No. 246/97. and for quashing the notices of demand dated 13.12.1996. 23.12.1997, and 27.12.1997. contained in Annexure Nos. 2. 14 and 15, to the writ petition.

(2.) It appears that on 19.10.1996 annual value of the building of M/s, Taj Mahal Hotel. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow was assessed by respondent No. 2 at Rs. 38.35,620, i.e., 7% of 5,45.947.20 p., in exercise of powers under U. P. Municipal Corporation Adhlniyam. 1959 (for short, the Adhintyam), thereafter a notice of demand dated 13.12.1996 was served upon the petitioner. Petitioner challenging validity of the order dated 19.10.1996 and notice dated 13.12.1996. filed an appeal under Section 472 of the Adhiniyam before District Judge, which was sent for disposal to respondent No. 3 on 2.1.1997. Since appeal was filed beyond period of limitation prescribed for the same, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. was also filed with the memo of appeal for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal filed by the petitioner was Incompetent, inasmuch as. It was beyond time, as well as requisite tax was not deposited by the petitioner before filing the appeal. Before removal of the said defect, no interim relief should have been granted to the applicant. However, learned District Judge, on 22.1.1997 passed the following order : "Issue notice. Realisation of tax prior to the date of assessment order-dated 19.10.96 is stayed till next date. Amount deposited shall, however, be subject to the decision of appeal."

(3.) Aforesaid order was passed ex-parte, behind the back of contesting respondents. It was on 20.11.1997. that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay tn filing appeal was allowed by respondent No. 3 and the appeal was directed to put up on 12.12.1997, and on 12.12.1997 appeal was admitted. Thereafter, petitioner applied for extension/grant of the interim stay order, which was objected to by contesting respondent No. 1. Learned Additional District Judge by its Judgment and order, dated 16.12.1997 rejected application filed by the petitioner for grant of Interim relief. In view of clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 472. Thereafter, demand bills/notices dated 23.12.1997 and 27.12.1997 were served upon the petitioner. Petitioner, as stated above, filed present petition, challenging validity of the said orders and the demand bills.