Delhi High Court
New Green Field Educational ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 29 August, 2001
Author: M Sharma
Bench: M Sharma
JUDGMENT
Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. By this order I proposed to dispose of the
review application filed by the petitioner seeking
review of the order dated 24.5.2000. By the
aforesaid order passed on 24.5.2000 this court
disposed of the writ petition filed by the
petitioner and registered as C.W. 6907/1999 holding
that the petitioner has efficacious remedy and
therefore, the writ petition could not be
entertained.
2. It is sought to be contended on behalf of
the petitioner that the observation made by this
court in paragraph 6 of the judgment/order to the
effect that it was an admitted position that an
appeal could be preferred against the order of
rectification passed by the Assessing Authority,
should be cancelled as no concession was made by
the petitioner that an appeal under Section 169 was
proper remedy against the rectification order.
Although in the application several contentions are
raised, the counsel appearing for the petitioner
restricted his arguments only to the aforesaid
extent and contended that since the petitioner did
not make any concession that an appeal under
Section 169 was proper remedy against the
rectification order the expression 'admitted
position' used by this court in said paragraph 6 of
the judgment should be expunged.
3. I have also heard the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent on the aforesaid
issue. It was submitted by her that the aforesaid
concession was rightly recorded by the court as the
petitioner had conceded during the course of
arguments that appeal under Section 169 of the DMC
Act was adequate remedy.
4. This Court recorded the observation in
the light of the submissions of the counsel
appearing for the parties and therefore, it cannot
be said that a contrary submission was made by the
counsel appearing for the petitioner at the time of
hearing of the writ petition. The said order was
passed as far back as 24.5.2000. If the aforesaid
observation was incorrect the petitioner in the
natural course would have filed a review
application immediately after the pronouncement of
the order pointing out the alleged anomaly and
would not have waited for a long time for coming up
with an application which was filed long after the
aforesaid order was passed. The aforesaid
observations in paragraph 6 are the natural outcome
and result of the submissions made by the counsel
appearing for the parties. In this connection
reference may also be made to the averments made in
the writ petition wherein the petitioner only
states that the remedy of appeal under Section 169
of the DMC Act is not an adequate and efficacious
remedy for the petitioner. It is not stated in the
said petition specifically that no appeal is
provided for as against a rectification order
although the petitioner has dealt with the aspect
of filing of an appeal at length in the writ
petition.
5. Even otherwise in view of the decision of
the Full Bench of this court in Castrol India Ltd.
v. General Manager, Northern Railways and Anr. ;
LPA 175/2000 disposed of on 17.11.2000, the
aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. By the
aforesaid judgment it was held by the Full Bench of
this court that the terms 'levy' and 'assessment'
as used in Section 169 have wide connotation and
meaning and that they comprehend the whole
proceedings for ascertaining and imposing liability
seeking for rectification is a part of the
aforesaid process and therefore, an appeal would
lie as against such an order in terms of Section
169 of the DMC Act.
6. In that view of the matter, there is no
merit in this application an the same stands
rejected.
