THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6695 of 2011 Dated:27.07.2011 Between: Mr.K.Sivannarayana Murthy. … Petitio And The Municipal Corporation of Guntur, And another. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6695 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner and his two brothers jointly purchased an old build bearing D.No.22-8-44 (234 square yards) in Lalapet of Guntur Town un registered sale deed dated 21.03.2002 registered on 22.03.2002. The prop was assessed to annual tax of Rs.584/-. They obtained building permiss from the first respondent and constructed a new building in the place of the one. The property was later partitioned under registered deed da 29.08.2006 and the petitioner got an area of 73 square yards (61.04 squ metres) and a portion of the building bearing Door No.22-8-44 with the n assessment No.29887 and the property tax of Rs.498/- per annum was levie It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent issued notice da 29.03.2008 proposing to enhance the half yearly tax to Rs.55,660/- on assessed rental value of Rs.27,731/- per month (Rs.2,21,847/- per annu Though the notice was issued to the petitioner’s vendor, the petitioner submi a revision petition presumably under Sections 220 and 221 of the Gre Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (the Act). The petitioner w advised to appear before the Additional Commissioner on 29.03.2010 at 4 pm. It is further case of the petitioner that he appeared and orally explained objections for the proposed upward revision of the annual ratable value as w as the tax to be levied. As alleged by the petitioner no orders were pas there after the oral hearing, but the respondents issued notice under Sec 268 of the Act in July 2010 demanding the arrears of property tax and propos coercive action under Sections 238, 269 and 278 of the Act in case of defa The petitioner then submitted appeal on 08.07.2010 and 13.07.2010 to Commissioner. In response to the appeal the impugned endorsement w issued informing the petitioner that his appeal will be considered only if petitioner makes payment of half yearly property tax for 2010-2011. A refere was also made to the earlier endorsement dated 02.07.2010 in which it appe similar demand was made. The matter was listed before us on 18.03.2011. Learned Stand Counsel for Guntur Municipal Corporation took notice and requested time getting instructions. Today when the matter is listed Counsel submits that appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending before the Commissioner, that same could not be taken up as the petitioner did not make half yearly paym of tax and that there are administrative instructions which justify the demand payment of half yearly tax as a condition precedent for considering application/appeal under Section 221 of the Act. With the assistance of both the Counsel we have gone through Secti 220, 221 and 282 of the Act. The law contemplates the deposit of the amount (Section 282(2)(d) of the Act) as a condition precedent for availing remedy of appeal provided under Section 282(1) of the Act. Any such condi for consideration of complaint/revision under Section 221 of the Ac conspicuous by its absence. When the statute itself does not impose precondition, it is needless to mention that administrative instructions can bring in such condition into the redressal mechanism provided by the statu Therefore, the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The Standing Counsel for Corporation submits that the complaint/app filed by the petitioner is likely to be disposed of in a short while. As complaint made by the petitioner is pending from July 2010, we deem it pro to direct the Commissioner, the second respondent herein, to dispose of petitioner’s complaint/appeal/revision within a period of two weeks from to without insisting upon payment of half yearly property tax for 2010-2011 or any other period. The Writ Petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be order as to costs. _____________ (V.V.S. RAO ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN 27.07.2011 vs