IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 3504 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3504 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3504 OF 2008 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Atul Setalvad, Senior Counsel with Counsel Mr. Medhavin Baxi alongwith Mr. Rahul P. Jain. Advocate i/b. M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. R.S. Apte with A.A.Garge for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 26th August, 2008. DATED: 26th August, 2008. DATED: 26th August, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard. 2. Perused petition. 3. On the motion made by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the names of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 allowed to be deleted from the array of parties. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 4. This petition is directed against the order passed under Rule 35 of BPMC Rules, 1996 and also the order of attachment attaching Bank account of the petitioner (Exhibit I-1 and I-2). 5. Mr. Apte learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the alternate remedy by way of appeal is provided under Section 406 of the BPMC Act (the Act) and that the same has not been exhausted by the petitioner. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the period of filing appeal has expired and that the entire liability could not have been inflicted upon the petitioners and that the amount of liability is required to be deposited if appeal is to be filed. He thus submits that notwithstanding availability of appellate remedy petition should be entertained. 7. In reply Mr. Apte learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the application for condonation of delay can always be filed if the appeal is barred by limitation. So far as financial liability is concerned, he submits that the petitioner can furnish the Bank guarantee for the entire liability mentioned in the order at Exhibit I. 8. In rejoinder, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has expressed that in this view of the matter, the petitioner can be relegated to an alternate remedy. Hence, this order: O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R The petitioner is relegated to the appellate remedy available under Section 406 of the Act. It will be open for the petitioner to file appeal within four weeks from today alongwith application for condonation of delay. The petitioner shall be at liberty to furnish Bank guarantee to secure monetary liability arising out of impugned orders i.e. for the aggregate amount excluding the amount already deposited or paid within four weeks from today. The attachment of Bank account shall automatically stand lifted with furnishing Bank Guarantee. In the event of filing of such appeal, the appellate authority is expected to dispose it off within four months from the date of filing. The Appellate Authority would be at liberty to consider the necessity of dispensing with statutory deposit in view of Bank Guarantee furnished and/or to be furnished by the petitioner. All rival contentions on merits are kept open. In the result, petition stands disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)