IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 302 OF 1997 Ramkrishna Theatre, Badpura, Nanded, Through its Partner Shri Satishsing S/o Madansing Bisan, Age: 36 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Gadipura, Nanded. ... PETITIONER. VERUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. Copy to be served on P. P., High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The Nanded Municipal Council, Through the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS. *** Mr. P. V. Mandlik, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M. V. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.2. *** CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: 24rd AUGUST, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel extensively. On 2nd August, 1999 Rule was issued. Municipal Council, Nanded issued demand tax bill No.34 for Rs.25067 in respect of property owned by the present petitioner. The same is subject of challenge by the petitioner, as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision No.75 of 1992 accepted contention of Nanded Municipal Council and set aside the appeal preferred by present Petitioner before the learned J.M.F.C., Nanded. The crucial point in the matter are what could be the import of section 170 of Maharashtra Municipalities Act, which is as under: "170. No appeal under the last preceeding section shall be entertained unless -- (a) the appeal, - (i) under sub-section (1) or under clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section 169 is brought within thirty days next after the presentation of the bill complained of; (ii) under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 169, to the property tax appeal committee is brought within thirty days next after the presentation of the bill complained of; and (iii) under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 169, to the Judicial Magistrate against the decision of the Property Tax Appeal Committee is, brought within thirdy days, next after the decision of that Committee: Provided that, in cases where the persons to whom the notices of demand or bills have been served after the 1st April, 1995, and who have not been able to file appeals against such claim for taxes made in the bills to the Pr9operty Tax Appeal Committee within the time limit specified, may file appeals to the Property Tax Appeal Committee within ninety days next, after the coming into force of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships (Amendment) Act, 1996. (b) an application in writing stating the grounds on which the claim of the Council is disputed, has been made to the Council in the case of a tax on buildings or lands or both within the time fixed in the notice given under section 119 or 123 of the assessment or alteration thereof, according to which the bill is prepared; and (c) (i) the appellant under sub-section (1) of section 169 has paid in the municipal office the full amount included in the bill; and (ii) the appellant under sub-section (2) of section 169 has paid in the municipal office, - (A) the full amount of tax as paid by him for the last preceding assessment year; (B) in respect of new properties being assessed for the first time, thirty per cent, of the amount of tax alimed in the bill by the Council." 2. It is the case of the owner of the property that as against Bill No.34 dated 17th June, 1987 for Rs.25,067/- there was a credit of Rs. 20,000/- bestowed to him by the Chief Officer which is shown by adjustment by a certificate. The amount of Rs.5,067/- is apparently not deposited. It was expected of the owner of the property to have at- least, at the time of entertaining the appeal, to deposit it. He has not done so. The approach of learned J.M.F.C. in this regard was found to be contrary to the law and record, which is corrected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I find no mistake or perversity in such correction. 3. The contention that the appeal was within limitation is properly dealt with in para 9 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. To revert back to facts, Bill No.34 is dated 17th June, 1987 served upon the owner on 24th July, 1987. It follows that the appeal should have been brought within fifteen days thereof in terms of section 170 (a) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. It was based on the original bill, which contemplated for filing of the appeal, it was not requirement that the owner should have filed certified copies of the objections raised. Law does not entertain such situation. Reliance to the judgment in the matter of "Thane Municipal Council, Thane V/s Thane Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Thane" reported in 1977 Mh.L.J. 9, will not be available to be coined. The appeal preferred by the owner before the learned J.M.F.C. was apparently time barred, not within the prescribed period of fifteen days next after the presentation of the demand bill. There was no deposit of Rs.5,067/-. I do not see any error on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Consequently, criminal writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:24/08/2009. ans/302