1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2367 OF 2009 Bharat Forge Limited : Petitioners. Versus Pune Cantonment Board & Anr. : Respondents. Shri Tejesh Dande for the Petitioners. Shri K J Presswala with Sandeep Goyal i/by M/s. Mull & Mulla & CBC for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 10th JULY 2009. P.C. 1. Rule, by consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petition is directed against the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the learned District Judge-15, Pune. By the said order, the Application Exhibit 5 filed by the Petitioner in Civil Appeal No. 668 of 2008 came to be rejected. 3. Such of the facts which are necessary to be cited are as under :- 2 The Petitioner have their property within the jurisdiction of the Respondent No.1-Cantonment Board. The Petitioner have been assessed to property tax by the Cantonment Board from time to time. The dispute in the present Petition relates to the triennal period of 2005 to 2006, 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008. The Respondent No.1 revised the assessment of the Petitioner and sent a revised bill dated 14th February 2008. Thereafter a further bill which is in the nature of recurring bill was sent on 12th September 2008. By the last bill the total amount claimed by way of property tax is to the tune of Rs.5,16,69,736. The Petitioner challenged the said two bills inter alia on the ground that in the matter of fixing annual letting value and consequently the property tax, the parties are governed by the Agreement which resulted in the Respondent No.1 passing Resolution No.44 dated 6th May 2004 and, therefore, it was the contention of the the Petitioner that enhancement as contemplated in the said Resolution was only permissible. The Petitioner had intially filed a writ petition in this Court which they withdrew on account of the alternative remedy which was available to them under the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 2006. The Petitioner thereafter filed an Appeal before the District Court at Pune in terms of Section 93 of the said Act raising various contention in respect 3 of the assessment. In the said Appeal, the Petitioner filed an application for stay which was numbered as Exhibit-5. The said Application Exhibit-5 was rejected by the trial Court by its order dated 26/11/2008. Against the said order, the Petitioner had intially filed an Appeal from Order which they withdrew to file the instant petition. The above Petition was moved for admission on 26.3.2009 when this Court recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that an amount of Rs.2,36,15,211 would be deposited by the Petitioner with the Respondent within two weeks. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the said amount is an amount which the Petitioner does not dispute and is liable to pay to the Respondent No.1 Board. Accordingly in terms of the said statement which has been recorded in the order date 26.3.2009, the Petitioner deposited Rs.2,36,15,211 by cheque dated 4.4.2009 drawn on HDFC Bank, Bhandarkar Road. It is undisputed that the said amount has been deposited with the Respondent No.1-Board. 4. Since the Petitioner has filed an Appeal under Section 93 of the said Act and since the Petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 2,36,15,211/- with the Respondent No.1 Board and considering the provisions of Section 96 of the said Act, in my view, since the Appeal of the Petitioner is pending before the District Court at Pune, without going 4 into the various contentions which are sought to be raised by the Petitioner in the present writ petition, it would be appropriate to direct the District Court, Pune to dispose of the said Civil Appeal within a particular time frame. Hence the above Petition is disposed of by the following order :- -:ORDER:- (i) In view of the provisions of Section 96 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 the Petitioner would deposit a further sum of Rs.2,80,54,525/- so as to make the total amount of Rs.51,669,736/- which is the amount mentioned in the subject bill within a period of twelve weeks from date. (ii) The District Court, Pune is directed to hear and dispose of the Civil Appeal No.668 of 2008 within six months of the deposit being made by the Petitioner in terms of clause (i) above. (iii) On such deposit being made, the same would lie in deposit pending the decision in the said Appeal. The District Court Pune would invest the said amount in a fixed deposit of a nationalised bank for such period as it deems appropriate and would also issue appropriate directions whilst passing the final order in the Appeal. 5 (iv) Looking to the provisions of Section 96 of the said Act, the Petitioner shall deposit further amounts in respect of the bill or bills that may be raised by the Respondent No.1. Undisputed amount of the said bill or bills shall be deposited by the Petitioner with the Respondent No.1 whereas disputed amount shall be deposited by the Petitioner in the District Court, Pune, pending disposal of the Appeal. (v) Needless to say that the District Court Pune would decide the said Appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made in the instant order. (vi) All the contentions of the parties are kept open. (vii) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. sd/- [R.M.SAVANT, J]