Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Thr. P.O.A Kavindarkumar S/O Jogindamath Talwar And Other v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Urgan Devp. Department, Mumbai And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3691/2016 Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and others ...Versus...

State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.V. Vaidya, Advocate for petitioners Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for respondent no.1 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 25.07.2016 By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the provisions of Section 406 (2) (e) and Section 406 (5) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act as being unconstitutional. The petitioners have in the alternative sought a direction against the appellate authority to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners, within a stipulated period.

It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that this Court has upheld the validity of the provisions of Section 406 (2) (e) of the Act, that require the appellant to deposit the entire tax, that is due, with the Commissioner. If the validity of the provisions of Section 406 (2) (e) of the Act has been upheld, we do not find any reason for the petitioners to challenge the validity of the provisions of Section 406

(5) of the Act, as by the said provisions, the appellant is liable to deposit the amount in the bills, that are issued against the appellant during the pendency of the appeal, with the Commissioner. Since the first prayer made on behalf of the petitioners is liable to be dismissed, in view of the decision on the said issue by this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the prayer made in the alternative may be granted. It is stated that a direction may be issued to the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the petitioners, within a time frame. Due to the heavy pendency of the matters before the appellate authority, it would not be possible for this Court to direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners, within a time frame. We, however, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal as early as possible.

Order accordingly. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar

C E R T I F I C A T E I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed order.

Uploaded by : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 27/07/2016