Court upholds validity of amended Section 217 of Municipal Corporation Act, dismisses challenge on reasonableness and retrospective application.

The court upheld the constitutional validity of the amended Section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, dismissing the petition challenging its reasonableness, legislative encroachment on the judicial domain, and retrospective application. The court ruled that the requirement to deposit tax as a condition for appeal regulation is permissible, and legislative restrictions on the right to appeal are valid. The court emphasized that statutory provisions should not be judged based on their strictness.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 211 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as amended.
2. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the amended Section 217.
3. Legislative encroachment upon the judicial domain.
4. Retrospective application of the amended Section 217.

Summary:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 211:
The primary issue in this petition is whether Section 211 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as amended, is constitutionally valid.

2. Reasonableness of Restrictions Imposed by the Amended Section 217:
The petitioners, holders of immovable property in Bombay, challenged the amended Section 217 on the grounds that it contravenes Articles 19, 31, and 355 of the Constitution of India. The amended Section 217 requires that no appeal against ratable value can be entertained unless the amount of tax chargeable on the disputed ratable value is deposited with the Commissioner. The court held that the right of appeal is a statutory creation and can be regulated by statute. The requirement to deposit the amount claimed as a condition precedent to the entertainment of the appeal does not nullify the right of appeal but regulates its exercise to prevent abuse.

3. Legislative Encroachment Upon the Judicial Domain:
The petitioners argued that the legislature had intruded upon the judicial domain by mandating that the Chief Judge summarily dismiss any appeal if the required deposit is not made. The court rejected this argument, stating that the legislature's right to legislate upon the right to appeal and to restrict it cannot be gainsaid. The pending appeal concludes with a judicial order, whether or not the requisite deposit is made.

4. Retrospective Application of the Amended Section 217:
The amended Section 217 applies retrospectively, requiring deposits for pending appeals. The court noted that the right of appeal is a vested right and can be taken away by subsequent enactment if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment. The court found that express words in the amended Section 217 make the restrictions upon the right of appeal imposed thereby retrospective.

Conclusion:
The court held that the amended Section 217 is constitutionally valid and dismissed the petition with costs. The petitioners' arguments regarding the unreasonableness of the restrictions, legislative encroachment upon the judicial domain, and retrospective application were rejected. The court emphasized that statutory provisions cannot be tested on the touchstone of harshness or stringency.

---