P.P. International School vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi

Facts

The appellant, P.P. International School, filed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging an order dated 25.09.2025 by a learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had not granted the appellant's interim prayer to deposit property tax as calculated by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) under the Amnesty Scheme (Sumpattikar Niptaan Yojana - SUNIYO), without prejudice to their rights and subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The appellant argued that the Amnesty Scheme, which expires on 30.09.2025, calculated tax three times higher than their own assessment. They sought to deposit the MCD's calculated amount to secure the MCD's position while preserving their right to challenge the calculation later. The MCD opposed this, citing a Supreme Court order that restrained the operation of a similar interim order from a previous case.

Held

The Court, while initially inclined to grant interim directions for the appellant to deposit the property tax as calculated by the MCD under the Amnesty Scheme, subject to the outcome of the writ petition, ultimately declined to do so. This decision was compelled by the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.32410/2023, which restrained the operation of an interim order dated 02.02.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench in a similar matter. The Court found that passing the requested directions would be inappropriate given the Supreme Court's injunction. The Court also noted that it was unable to appreciate the appellant's reliance on the judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed along with pending applications, with no observations made on the merits of the case, leaving all contentions open for the learned Single Judge to decide in the underlying writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant should be permitted to deposit the property tax as calculated by the MCD under the Amnesty Scheme, subject to the outcome of the underlying writ petition, to avail the scheme before its expiry on 30.09.2025? The appellant argued that this interim deposit would serve the dual purpose of securing the tax for the MCD and allowing the appellant to benefit from the Amnesty Scheme while their dispute over the calculation method is adjudicated. They contended that this approach would avoid irreparable injury and financial loss to them. The appellant also stated that they would withdraw other pending litigations as per the scheme's conditions, except for the underlying writ petition. The respondent (MCD) argued that a similar interim order in a previous case (W.P.(C) 6420/2013 & batch) was stayed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.32410/2023. They further contended that the Amnesty Scheme is a policy decision, a one-time offer, and not subject to judicial interference regarding its methodology or taxation approach, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Satyakam Arya vs. Union of India & Anr.