JUDGMENT
Mohd. Shamim, J.
(1) The grievance of the petitioner is that the rateable value in the instant case was not fixed in accordance with the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case entitled N.D.M.C. v. East India Hotels Ltd. and Anr.,( Civil Appeal Nos. 42-44/87, decided on August 25,1994). Hence he wants that rateable value fixed by the Director (Tax) vide order dated December 14,1995 be set aside.
(2) It has been urged, on the other hand, on behalf of the respondent that the present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court as the petitioner has got an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 115 of the N.D.M.C. Act.
(3) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at sufficient length. Admittedly an appeal is maintainable against every assessment order under Section 115 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in case the petitioner prefers an appeal against the impugned assessment order in that eventuality he may be required to deposit the disputed amount of tax. Hence the said remedy is virtually no remedy in the eye of law. To my mind, the said contention of the learned counsel is not at all tenable.
(4) It is now a well established principle of law that in case an alternative remedy is available a party cannot be allowed to bypass the said remedy and to knock at the doors of this Court. The provision with regard to the deposit of the disputed amount of tax was held to be perfectly legal and valid as per the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court asa reported in Shyam Kishore v.Municipal Corporation of Delhi, . It was further observed ” If the provision is interpreted in the manner above suggested, one can steer clear of all problems of constitutional validity. The contention on behalf of the Corporation to read the provision rigidly and seek to soften the rigour by reference to the availability of a recourse to the High Courts by way of a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 in certain situations and the departmental instructions referred to earlier does not appear to be a satisfactory solution. The departmental instructions may not always be followed and the resort to Arts. 226 and 227 should be discouraged when there is an alternative remedy…………. The construction of the section approved by us above vests in the appellate authority a power to deal with the appeal otherwise than by way of final disposal even if the disputed tax is not paid. It enables the authority to exercise a judicial discretion to allow the payment of the disputed tax even after the appeal is filed but, no doubt, before the appeal is taken up for actual hearing….”.
(5) It was so held in a large number of cases as reported in Siliguri Municipality v. Amlen Dey Dass, , Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board, , Union of India v. T.R.Verma, , Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v.Dunlop India Ltd, , Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.C.L.Batra, , Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P. ( Air 1962 Sc 1621), Shyam Kishore v. Mcd, , The Industrial Finance Corporation India Ltd. v.Municipal Corporation of Delhi, ( 1996 I Ad (Delhi) 535), and Hotel Corporation of India v. Mcd in C.W. No. 1995/89, Sir Sobha Singh & Sons v. Ndmc Palika Kendra & Another, (1996 (11) Apex Decisions Delhi, page 247), and Hotel Corporation of India v. Mcd in C.W. No. 3849/92 dated 14.9.93.
(6) In view of the above I do not see any force in the present petition. Dismissed.