- (1.) There will be an order In terms of prayer (a) of the Stay Petition.
(2.) This appeal with the consent of the petitioner is treated as on the day's list and is being disposed of.
(3.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th August. 1997 pasted by a learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in writ petition No. 1250 of 1997. the fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The writ petitioner/first respondent filed a writ application questioning the determination of annual valuation by the appellant. The learned Trial Judge by reason of the impugned order while directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned authority, further directed that such appeal shall be preferred by the petitioner in terms thereof without making any payment whatsoever. The learned Trial Judge further granted an unconditional stay for eight weeks from the date of passing of the said order. It is stated that pursuant to the order of the learned Trial Judge an appeal had been filed within two weeks before the Appellate Authority in terms of Section 189 (6) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act The only question which arises for consideration in the appeal is as to whether the learned Trial Judge was right in allowing the first respondent to prefer an appeal without making any payment whatsoever. Proviso appended to Section 189 (6) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act reads thus:- "No appeal under this Section shall be entertained unless the consolidated rate in respect of the land or building for the period ending on the date of presentation of the appeal on the valuation determined under Section 188 has been deposited (in the office of the Corporation) and the appeal shall abate unless such consolidated rate is continued to be deposited till the appeal is finally disposed of";