:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2110 OF 2008 PETITION (L) NO.2110 OF 2008 PETITION (L) NO.2110 OF 2008 Maurice L. Cotinho and others ..Petitioners V/s The State of Maharashtra & others ..Respondents Mr. Madhav Jamdar for the petitioner Mr. Pradeep Jadhav, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. Archna Joshi for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 CORAM CORAM CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND A.A. A.A. A.A. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the virus of Section 217(5) of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. He has challenged the rateable value of the property at the particular rate. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed Municipal Appeal (St) No. 1474 of 2005, which is pending before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. He further submitted that the appeal is likely to be dismissed and the same is kept for dismissal on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited the required amount, which is required to be deposited as per Section 217(5) of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. He submitted that the petitioners are having very weak financial :2: condition, they may be given some time to deposit the amount. The learned Counsel for the Corporation has no objection if reasonable time is granted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is granted time upto 31st January, 2009 to deposit the required amount as per law. The appeal of the petitioner bearing Municipal Appeal (St) No 1474 of 2006 may not be dismissed till the aforesaid date. However, in case the amount is not deposited the Small Causes Court is free to pass appropriate order. If the amount is deposited the appeal may be proceeded on its own merits. 2. It is clarified that in view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the financial condition of the petitioners as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners this order is passed and the same may not be treated as precedent in other matters. This Court has not adjudicated other grievances on merits as the learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that they are willing to proceed with the Tax Appeal only after depositing the amount. 3. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (P.B. (P.B. (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) MAJMUDAR, J.) MAJMUDAR, J.) :3: ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)