CWP No. 15999 of 2010 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 15999 of 2010 Date of decision: January 28,2011 Rakesh Kumar ..Petitioner. Versus The Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. H.P.S.Ghumman, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 6 ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) The contour of the facts, which needs to be noticed to decide the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner and his brother Rajesh Kumar are the owners of the shop/property in question. The House Tax Sub-Committee of Municipal Corporation, Patiala (for brevity, “M.C.”) (respondent No.3) levied the house tax on the property of the petitioner under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act'). M.C. granted them one more opportunity to pay an amount of tax of `45,110/- for the Assessment Year 2007-08 till 19.12.2008, failing which the property was proposed to be sold, vide impugned order/notice dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P-1). 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure P-1), the petitioner CWP No. 15999 of 2010 2 filed the appeal (Annexure P-5) before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala under Section 146 of the Act, which was dismissed on the technical ground of non- deposit of an amount, before hearing the appeal, by virtue of the impugned order dated 21.5.2010 (Annexure P-6) 3. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-6), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 5. As is evident from the impugned order that on 30.3.2010, the appellant pleaded that he has deposited the entire money in dispute but he failed to give any proof of the deposit. On this technical ground, his appeal was dismissed by means of impugned order (Annexure P-6). 6. What is not disputed here is that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of ` 30,000/- as tax vide receipt dated 13.8.2009 (Annexure P-2) and an amount of ` 31,700/- by virtue of receipt dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P-3) by way of Cheque Nos.066351 and 066352, as indicated in the certificate (Annexure P-4). Therefore, once the petitioner has already deposited the indicated amount, then to me at least, in the interest of real justice, he is entitled to right of hearing of his statutory appeal under Section 146 of the Act, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties in this relevant connection. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing of the appeal, the instant writ petition is accepted, impugned order Annexure P-6 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to Divisional CWP No. 15999 of 2010 3 Commissioner, Patiala (Appellate Authority) to decide the appeal (Annexure P-5) on merits in accordance with law. January 28,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No