IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 134 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 08.01.2009 Manju Nevatia and others ...Petitioners versus Municipal Corporation and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. A. K. Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioners. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 02.03.206 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, whereby the rental value of their property has been assessed at Rs. 52,920/- per annum. They also seek quashing of the order dated 24.03.208 (Annexure P-2) whereby their appeal against the above mentioned order has been dismissed by respondent No.3-the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot. In view of the nature of the order, I propose to pass, let notice of motion to respondent No.3 alone be issued. Mr. G. S. Attariwala, learned Additional AG, Punjab accepts notice. The petitioners are owners of Shop No. 2711/3 situated at G.T. Road, Bathinda. The said shop is alleged to have C.W.P NO. 134 OF 2009 -2- been rented out to M/S Maruti Centre @ Rs.3000/- per month. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, however, has assessed the rental value of the said property @ Rs.52,920/- per annum. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a statutory appeal under Section 146 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1976. The Appellate Authority, namely, the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, however, has dismissed the said appeal vide impugned order dated 24.03.2008 by observing as follows : “I have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. In Section 47 (b) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, it has been laid down 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”. The appellants have failed to deposit the amount in dispute in the office of the Corporation and as such this appeal is not maintainable. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal”. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the petitioners were asked to deposit the disputed house tax amount nor any opportunity to deposit the same was granted to them before depriving of them their right to seek adjudication of the appeal on merits . C.W.P NO. 134 OF 2009 -3- Having heard learned counsel for the parties, i am of the considered view that the order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot sustain any law. It was imperative upon the Appellate Authority to grant an opportunity to the petitioners to deposit the amount of house tax before their appeal could be dismissed for non-deposit thereof. For the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order dated 02.03.206 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. The petitioners are directed to deposit the arrears of house tax, as assessed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bathinda within a period of one month, however, without prejudice to their legal rights. The Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot shall thereafter hear the appeal afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of two months. JANUARY 08, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE