Pre-deposit condition for municipal tax appeals upheld as a valid regulatory requirement, not an Article 14 violation.

A statutory right of appeal may be made subject to a pre-deposit condition as a valid condition precedent to maintainability, because the requirement is designed to secure prompt municipal revenue and prevent abuse of the appellate process. Section 406(2)(e) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as amended by the proviso limiting relief to 25% of the tax deposit, was held not to offend Article 14. The provision applies uniformly to all appellants who do not comply with the deposit requirement, and any hardship is addressed by judicial discretion to waive the deposit wholly or partly. The law was therefore treated as a regulatory measure, not an unconstitutional denial of appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 406(2)(e) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as amended by the proviso limiting relief to 25% of the tax deposit, was unconstitutional as violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The statutory right of appeal can validly be made subject to conditions precedent, and the requirement of depositing the disputed tax or rateable value before an appeal is entertained is a regulatory condition designed to secure prompt municipal revenue and prevent abuse of the appellate process. The proviso confers discretion on the appellate Judge to dispense with the deposit wholly or partly in cases of undue hardship, so the provision does not extinguish the right of appeal but regulates its exercise. The classification drawn by the provision applies uniformly to all appellants who fail to comply with the deposit requirement, and the resulting disadvantage flows from their own default rather than from invidious discrimination. Earlier and analogous municipal enactments had been upheld on the same principle.

Conclusion: The provision is not violative of Article 14 and is constitutionally valid.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory right of appeal may validly be subjected to a deposit requirement as a condition precedent to maintainability, and such a condition does not offend Article 14 if it operates uniformly and includes a discretion to relieve undue hardship.

---