RAMLAKHAN TRIPATHI Vs. CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 12-9-2012 and 19-5-2012 passed by the Trial Court, by which the revision and the appeal respectively preferred by the petitioner under Section 172 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Act") have been rejected.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had. preferred an appeal under Section 172(2) of the Act against the demand notice dated 2-3-2006. The petitioner after dismissal of appeal had deposited entire amount mentioned in demand notice dated 2-3-2006 in the office of Municipal Council. However, the Trial Court has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount claimed from him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is patently erroneous and illegal. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the Trial Court.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. It is well-settled in law that right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions of the statute granting it. When statute confers right of appeal, the legislature can impose conditions for the exercise of such right. [See : Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. P. Laxmi Bai, 2008 4 SCC 720]. In the case of Shyam Kishore and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, 1993 1 SCC 22, vide interpreting a pari materia provision contained in Section 170 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Act, 1957") held that the expression "no appeal shall be heard or determined" used by the legislature mentioned in Section 170 of the Act, 1957 indicate that the payment of tax is not condition precedent to the entertainment or admission of the appeal. Such appeal can be admitted or entertained but only can be heard or disposed of without pre-deposit of the disputed tax. In the backdrop of the aforesaid well-settled legal provision, Section 172 of the Act may be seen, which reads as under:--