IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1859 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 11.09.2008 Satluj Club (Registered) Raka Bagh, Civil Lines, Ludhiana .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner Club has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 28.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the demand of recovery of house tax was adjourned in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner Club to deposit the disputed amount of house tax. The said order has been passed by the Appellate Authority in view of Clause (b) of Section 147 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), CWP No. 1859 of 2007 -2- which provides that 'No appeal shall be entertained under section 146 unless the amount, if any, in dispute in the appeal has been deposited by the appellant in the office of the Corporation.' Counsel for the petitioner Club states that since in this case, the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, did not follow the proper procedure, while determining the annual rental value for the purpose of assessing the house tax, therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner Club under Section 146 of the Act should be heard on merit, without insisting on the condition of pre-deposit of the amount of house tax. During the course of arguments, counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, has made an offer that in case the petitioner Club deposits 50% of the amount of the outstanding dues, the Appellate Authority may be directed to hear the appeal on merits. But counsel for the petitioner Club, on instructions from the petitioner Club, does not accept the offer and submits for total waiver of the condition of pre-deposit. After hearing counsel for the parties, we do not find any ground to grant the total waiver to the petitioner Club of the condition of pre- deposit, as neither there is any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner Club nor the petitioner Club has shown any financial hardship. The Supreme Court in St. Mary's School and others v. Cantonment Board, Meerut and others, (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 484 has already held that such condition does not amount to onerous condition on right of appeal and the appellant can be granted time for depositing the amount of tax CWP No. 1859 of 2007 -3- before hearing the appeal on merits. The petitioner in this case is not ready to deposit even the half of the amount of the due tax. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition and in our opinion, no interference is required in the impugned order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 11, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE