RAMKUMAR RAMCHANDRA CHOUDHARI Vs. HINGOLI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether a person who wants to challenge a demand made by a bill issued under Section 150 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Municipalities Act') is bound to deposit the amount of taxes which he does not want to dispute in the appeal filed under Section 170 of the Municipalities Act.

(2.) THE question arises thus: On January 6, 1973 a bill was received by the petitioner making a demand for house tax, education cess and Bangla Desh Relief Fund Cess. The house tax demanded was Rs. 1,096.20 consisting of Rs. 529.20 for the year 1971 -72 and 1972 -73. The education cess demanded for 1962 -63 to 1970 -71 was Rs. 124.11 and Rs. 94.50 for the years. 1971 -72 and 1972 -73 each. The Bangla Desh Cess demanded was Rs. 23.63 for 1971 -72 and Rs. 47.25 for 1972 -73. The demand totalled Rs. 1,480.19, but after making a representation to the Municipal Council, it was reduced to Rs. 1,478.19. The correction was made by the Municipal Council on January 23, 1973 and on February 6, 1973, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 169 of the Municipalities Act. Section 169 of the Municipalities Act Provides for appeals against any claim for taxes or other dues included in the bill presented to any person under Section 150 or any other provisions of the Act. The appeal lies to a Judicial Magistrate or Bench of such Magistrates by whom under the direction of the Sessions Judge such class of cases is to be tried. Section 170 of the Act, which deals with the procedure in appeal, reads as follows; No appeal under the last preceding section shall be entertained unless -

(3.) NOW , it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there was no prohibition in the Municipalities Act which prevented the petitioner from challenging only a part of the demand made by the bill and, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if the petitioner did not challenge the demand with regard to education cess and Bangla Desh Relief Fund Cess, then since those demands were not the subject -matter of the appeal, he was not bound to deposit that amount before filing the appeal. It is, however, contended on behalf of the Municipal Council by Mr. Savant that where Clause (c) in Section 170 refers to the amount claimed, those words have reference to the total demand made in the bill of demand.