IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10662 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 01.09.2008 Lodhi Club (Registered), Ludhiana through its Supervisor Shri Rajinder Singh .... 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. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who is a Registered Club has filed this petition, through its Supervisor Shri Rajinder Singh, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the interim order dated 18.3.2008, passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, whereby the petitioner Club was directed to deposit the house tax for the last three years, within a week, before hearing the appeal filed by the petitioner Club against the order of demand of House Tax. In the present case, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, respondent No.3 herein, issued notice dated 11.10.1997 (Annexure P-8) directing the petitioner Club to deposit a sum of Rs. 98,48,154.04 as arrears of house tax. The said amount pertains to the period from 1996-1997 to CWP No. 10662 of 2008 -2- 2007-2008. Against the said demand, the petitioner Club filed an appeal under Section 146 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, respondent No.2 herein. Along with the appeal, an application for stay of recovery of the amount demanded vide notice dated 11.10.1997 was also filed. After hearing counsel for the petitioner on the said application, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 18.3.2008, directing the petitioner Club to deposit the arrears of amount of house tax for the last three years, in order to hear the appeal on merits. The said order has been challenged in this petition. It is the case of the petitioner Club that the impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, as respondent No.2, while passing the impugned order, has failed to consider that the amount in question has been demanded by the respondent Corporation without following the due procedure, as prescribed under the Act. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the present petition. Clause (b) of Section 147 of the Act 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.' The petitioner Club is seeking waiver of the condition of pre-deposit, without making out a prima facie good case in its favour. In this case, the recovery pertains to 12 years i.e. from 1996-1997 to 2007-2008 and vide impugned order, respondent No.2 has directed the CWP No. 10662 of 2008 -3- petitioner Club to deposit the house tax for the last three 3 years. This condition does not seem to be unreasonable. In view of the said clause (b) of Section 147 of the Act, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Even the petitioner Club has not made out a case of great financial hardship. Therefore, in our opinion, no interference is required in the impugned order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 01, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE