JUDGMENT Reilly, J. 1. I agree with the learned Small Cause Court Judge that the petitioners suit is barred by Section 354 (2), Madras District Municipalities Act. The allegations in the plaint are consistent with the provisions of the Act having been complied with in substance and effect. It is alleged that, when the petitioner appealed against his assessment, no order on his appeal was communicated to him. That, if so, was discourteous. But there appears to be no provision in the Act or the rules under it requiring the decision on such an appeal to be communicated formally to the appellant. Apart from that alleged defect in procedure the petitioner complains that ho has been assessed most arbitrarily without reference to facts and figure. 2. Mr. Kesava Aiyangar argues for him that no assessment which is incorrect does in substance and effect comply with the provisions of the Act-that an incorrect assessment has no legal basis. If that argument is accepted, then Section 354 (2), of the Act is no protection against a suit of any person who is not in complete agreement with the Municipal Council about the justice of his assessment. I have no doubt that the sub-section was intended to provide real protection to the Chairman and the Council and that its effect is that, when they have proceeded in the matter of assessment in accordance with the Act, no suit will lie against them even if their actual decision is wrong. A disappointed assessee certainly cannot escape the bar against his suit by describing the action of the Council or the Chairman as arbitrary or by using any other strong language.