JUDGMENT - DHANUKA D.R., J.:—This petition involves consideration of an important and interesting question of law concerning interpretation and applicability of section 83(1)(g) of Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 1977. The principal questions required to be decided by the Court in this writ petition are formulated as under: — (1) Whether at all material times, the petitioner was a Co-operative Housing Society and its principal object always was and is to provide dwelling houses to its members? (2) Whether lands and buildings vested in the petitioner society are exempted from payment of Repair Cess under section 83(1)(g) of Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 1977 and, if so, from which date? (3) Whether the Certificate of classification issued by Registrar or Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Act is liable to be treated as conclusive in the proceedings relating to exemption from repair cess under section 83(1)(g) of Maharashtra Act XXVIII of 1977? (4) Whether amendment of certificate of classification i.e. from General Society to Co-operative Housing Society the amendment of certificate relates back to its original date? 2. For the reasons, discussed hereinafter, I have reached the following conclusions in respect of answers to the abovereferred questions: — (1) Yes (2) Yes — from 31st July, 1981 (3) No (4) Yes 3. It is necessary to summaries the relevant facts having bearing on the subject matter of this petition. The relevant facts are as under: — (a) Prior to 23rd day of March, 1980, about 24 tenants used to occupy the building known as “Pearl Mansion” situate at 91, Maharshi Karve Road, Bombay 400 020. The said building consisted of 20 residential flats admeasuring about 30,000 sq. ft. The non-residential area in the said building comprised of 6 shops and 8 garages admeasured about 6,000 sq. ft. in the aggregate. The non-residential area in the said building was 16.2/3% of the total built-up area of the said building. (b) On 31st August, 1979, the Promoters of Pearl Mansion Joint Venture Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (proposed) made an application to Dy. District Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies for registration of the society disclosing names of the erstwhile tenants who were residing in the said building and furnishing relevant particulars in respect of non-residential premises in the said building. (b) On 31st August, 1979, the Promoters of Pearl Mansion Joint Venture Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (proposed) made an application to Dy. District Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies for registration of the society disclosing names of the erstwhile tenants who were residing in the said building and furnishing relevant particulars in respect of non-residential premises in the said building. At the material time, the societies where the non-residential area was more than 10% of the total area available in the building used to be registered as “General Societies” instead of a “Housing Society” in view of a departmental circular issued by the Government of Maharashtra in this behalf. The promoters of the said proposed society made an application to the Registrar/Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies for registration of the society as “Flat Owner Type General Society”. The draft bye-laws of the said society disclosed that principal object of the aid society was to provide dwelling houses to its members. The proposed Society was in fact and in law a Housing Society. Almost all the residential Buildings belonging to housing societies have few shops and garages. On 24th September, 1979, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies A ward, Bombay-1, issued his certificate of registration in respect of the said society. In the said certificate dated 24th September 1979, it was also stated that the said society was classified as “Other Society”. (c) On 26th March 1980, the Government of Maharashtra issued its Circular No. CSH 1079/25697-1229/14-C, a copy whereof is annexure “D” to the writ petition. It was recited in the said circular as a matter of history that for the moment the societies, where the non-residential area was more than 10% of the total area available in the building of the societies were being classified by Registrar of Co-operative Societies as “General Societies” under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. By the operative part of the said Government circular, it was declared that the Government of Maharashtra had decided that the societies which were formed with the objects of providing its members with dwelling houses should be registered as “Housing Societies” and classified in the category of Housing Societies i.e. under Clause 5 of Rule 10 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, irrespective of the fact as to whether the non-residential area was less or more than 10% of the total area of the society. (d) By a Deed of Assignments dated 23rd March, 1989, the former owners of the said property, conveyed title in respect thereof in favour of the petitioner society as it was then known in view of erroneous classification of the Society as a “General Society”. The said Deed of Assignment was duly registered by the Sub-Registrar of Assurance at Bombay in due course. The said assignment relates back to the date of execution of the said Deed of Assignment. Thus the title to the land and building described in Exhibit. “A” to the petition vested in the petitioner society w.e.f. 23rd March, 1980. (e) The said society claimed exemption from payment of Repair Cess as contemplated under section 83(1)(g) of Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 1977. Section 83(1)(g) of the Act exempts land and building vesting in Co-operative Housing Society from repair cess provided that half of total number of tenements are occupied by members of the society and the building is not structurally repaired by the Board. It was specifically stated by and on behalf of the petitioner in the correspondence exchanged with various authorities that all the flats, shops and garages in the said Building were owned and occupied by the members of the said society and that no structural repairs were carried out to the said building by the board at any time. These averments are repeated by the petitioner on oath in paras 17 and 20 of the petition and have not been controverted on behalf of the respondents. The said society paid a sum of Rs. 7,321/- as and by way of repair cess to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay under protest. The said amount was in respect of repair cess claimed by the respondents of the period 1st October, 1979 to 31st March, 1980. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay is a statutory agent of Respondent No. 4 for collection of the amount of repair cess: (f) After carrying on considerable correspondence with the Municipal Officers on the subject, the petitioners in its former name made an application for exemption from levy of repair cess to the Deputy Chief Officer of Repairs and Reconstruction, Repair Board, Bandra (East), Bombay. The petitioner made the said application on 31st July, 1981. The petitioner made the said application on 31st July, 1981. (g) By its order dated 17th November, 1985, the Bombay Housing and Area Development Board rejected the said application of the petitioner stating therein that “the Pearl Mansion Joint Venture Premises Co-operative Society Ltd.” appeared to be a “General Society and not a “Housing Society”. No discussion is to be found in the said order in respect of the principal object of the Society under its bye-laws or the fact that the building in question was a residential building with few shops and garages. It is obvious from the reading of the said order that the respondent No. 4 decided the said application for exemption treating the certificate of classification issued by Registrar of Co-operative Societies as “General Society” as conclusive without considering the question as to whether the said society was liable to be treated as “Co-operative Housing Society” in context of its bye-laws or area of residential flats in the building. The respondent No. 4 did not address itself to the question as to whether the principal object of the Society as provided in its bye-laws was to provide dwelling houses to its members. The Board rejected the said application for exemption rather mechanically and that too after taking time for more than 4 years for deciding the same. (h) In this situation, the society had no alternative but to make an application to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, A Ward, for amendment in the certificate of registration so as to amend or correct the erroneous classification of the society therein i.e. from “General Society” to “Housing Society”. A copy of application made by the petitioner to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 29th January, 1986, is annexure (E) to this writ petition. In the said application it was clearly stated by the petitioner that the substantial part of the said building was occupied by residential area. It was also stated in the said application that the petitioner society was classified as “General Society” in the year 1979, merely because of the fact the non-residential area in the said building exceeded 10% of the total built up area. It was also stated in the said application that the petitioner society was classified as “General Society” in the year 1979, merely because of the fact the non-residential area in the said building exceeded 10% of the total built up area. In the said application the petitioner relied upon Government circular dated 2nd May, 1980, whereby it was directed that the Co-operative Societies which were formed with the object of providing its members with dwelling houses should be classified as “Housing Societies” irrespective of the fact that the non-residential area in the building owned by the Society was more than 10% of the total area of the society. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies took his own time to decide the said application. By his letter dated 17th February, 1986, the Deputy of Registrar Co-operative Societies called upon the petitioner to furnish relevant details about the area of residential flats as well as area of shops in the property etc. The relevant data was already furnished to Deputy Registrar at time of making original application for registration of the Society in the year 1979. By its letter dated 21st February, 1986, the petitioner furnished the necessary details. It was also stated in the said letter dated 21st February, 1986, that all the flats in the building were occupied by members of the Co-operative Society. The application remained pending. Demands for payment of repair cess were made by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay on the petitioner - society. The abovereferred application remained undecided. On 14th February, 1988, the Society passed a resolution adopting model bye-laws applicable to flat owners type of co-operative housing society. To my mind this fact is not so relevant as even under the societies at the time of registration the principal object of the society was to provide dwelling houses to its members. The admitted facts regarding the society owning a residential building are also eloquent. The existence of few shops and garages in the property did not change the nature of the Society. On 12th June, 1988, the petitioner forwarded various documents to the District Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar (A Ward) and sought approval of the registration of the co-operative societies to the adopted model bye-laws. By its letter dated 12th June, 1988, the petitioner once again requested the Deputy Registrar to amend the classification of the said society with retrospective effect. On 12th June, 1988, the petitioner forwarded various documents to the District Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar (A Ward) and sought approval of the registration of the co-operative societies to the adopted model bye-laws. By its letter dated 12th June, 1988, the petitioner once again requested the Deputy Registrar to amend the classification of the said society with retrospective effect. On 20th June, 1988, the petitioner addressed one more letter to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies repeating the same very submissions as made in the earlier correspondence and once again sought amendment of the Certificate of registration as the petitioner society was erroneously classified by the Deputy District Registrar of Co-operative Society” as a “General Society” instead of being classified as “Housing Society”. (i) On 23rd June, 1988, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed an Order amending the classification of the petitioner society as “Housing Society” and sub-classification as “Tenant Co-partnership Society” instead of “General Society” and sub-classification “Other Society”. While passing the Order dated 23rd June, 1988, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies referred to and relied on Government Circular dated 26th March 1980 (copy whereof is Exhibit “D” to the petition) and Government Circular dated 2nd May, 1980 (a copy whereof is at page 49 of compilation of documents filed on behalf of the petitioners). The said Government Circular dated 2nd May, 1980 also recites the fact that no uniform procedure was being followed in respect of classification of Co-operative Housing Society. The said circular reiterates that the Co-operative Housing Society formed with the object of providing it members with dwelling houses should be registered as “Housing Societies” and not as “General Societies” irrespective of the fact as to whether the non-residential area in the building of the society was more or less than 10% of the total area of the society. The Dy. District Registrar of Co-operative Societies did not state into so many words that the abovereferred correction or amendment of petitioner's classification was retrospective. It follows that an amendment or correction of error of this kind must relate back to the date of original erroneous classification of the petitioner society. (j) In pursuance of Order dated 23rd June, 1988, the certificate of registration dated 24th September, 1979, was amended and corrected and the said society was classified as a Co-operative Housing Society and the change in its name was approved. (j) In pursuance of Order dated 23rd June, 1988, the certificate of registration dated 24th September, 1979, was amended and corrected and the said society was classified as a Co-operative Housing Society and the change in its name was approved. By the said amendment and or correction in the certificate of registration, it was expressly declared that the petitioner was classified by the Registrar of Co-operative Society as a “Co-operative Housing Society” with the sub-classification thereof as “Tenant Co-Partnership Society”. (k) The petitioner society is not required to pay repair cess to the board for the period commencing from 23rd June, 1988. Disputes between the parties pertain to claim made by the concerned respondents in respect of demand for repair cess for the period prior thereto. 4. I shall now refer to some of the relevant provisions having bearing on the questions of law required to be decided in this petition. 5. Section 83(1)(g) of Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 1977 provides that: “Lands and buildings vesting in or leased to a co-operative housing society shall be exempted from payment of the cess provided that more than ½ total number of tenements were occupied by members of the society.” Section 83(2) of the said Act provides that: “the lands and buildings vested in the co-operative housing society shall not be so exempted from payment of the cess if the building was structurally repaired at any time by the board.” Section 2(12) of the said Act defines the expression “Co-operative Society” to mean a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 1977 does not provide anywhere that the certificate of classification of the Society by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies must be treated as conclusive at all times and the Society would not be entitled to exemption from the levy even if it satisfied all the prescribed conditions of eligibility in respect of the levy. The Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 1977 does not provide anywhere that the certificate of classification of the Society by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies must be treated as conclusive at all times and the Society would not be entitled to exemption from the levy even if it satisfied all the prescribed conditions of eligibility in respect of the levy. Section 2(16) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act defines the expression “Housing Society” as under: — “2(16) “Housing Society” means a society, the object of which is to provide its members with open plots for housing, dwelling houses or flats; or if open plots, the dwelling houses or flats are already acquired to provide its members common amenities and services.” Section 8 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 makes provisions for making of application for registration of the society. Section 9 of the said Act provides for registration of the said society. Section 10 of the said Act provides for issue of Certificate of Registration. Section 12 of the said Act provides for classification and sub-classification of the societies as may be prescribed by rules. Material portion of Rule 10 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 reads as under:— “10. Classification and sub-classification of societies.—(1) After registration of a society, the Registrar shall classify the society into one or other of the following classes and sub-classes of societies prescribed below according to the principal object provided in its bye-laws: Relevant potion of Class 5 forming part of Rule 10 reads as under — Class Sub-class Examples of societies falling in the class or sub-class, as the case may be. 5. Housing (a) Tenant Housing Societies where land is held Society Ownership either on lease-hold or free hold basis Housing Society by Societies and houses are owned or are to be owned by members. Class 9 forming part of Rule 10 reads as under:— Class Sub-class Examples of societies falling in the class or sub-class, as the case may be. 9. General (a) Social Better Living Societies and Education Society Societies. (b) Commercial Insurance and Motor Transport Societies. (c) Other Not falling in either of the above sub-classes. A society can be classified as General Society only if it does not fall in any of the specific categories prescribed by Rule 10 of the Rules. 6. 9. General (a) Social Better Living Societies and Education Society Societies. (b) Commercial Insurance and Motor Transport Societies. (c) Other Not falling in either of the above sub-classes. A society can be classified as General Society only if it does not fall in any of the specific categories prescribed by Rule 10 of the Rules. 6. Section 83(1)(g) of the Act statutorily exempts the properties vesting in Co-operative Housing Societies form the levy of repair cess provided ½ of total number of tenements are occupied by members of the society and the building is not structurally repaired by the board. It is the statutory duty of the Board to consider an application for exemption by applying the statutory criteria prescribed by the Act, and apply its mind to the question as to whether the applicant has fulfilled the condition of eligibility. The Board must ascertain for itself objectively as to whether the principal object of the Society was to provide dwelling houses to its members. Certificate of classification by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 10 of the relevant Rules operates merely as a prima facie evidence in respect of classification of the Co-operative Society. The society cannot be deprived of its statutory right to statutory exemption if the statutory conditions prescribed in section 83(1)(g) of the Act are in fact satisfied merely because the Registrar of Co-operative Societies commits an error in classifying the Society as a General Society. The mere fact that non-residential area in the residential building of the society was about 16% could never be a valid reason for classifying the Society as a General Society instead of Housing Society. To my mind the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society right form inception. Administrative Circular of Government of Maharashtra, if any, directing the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to classify all such societies, where the principal object of the society was to provide dwelling house to its members, as General Society merely on the ground of non-residential area in the building exceeding 10% of its total area had no legal efficacy whatsoever. In every co-operative housing society there are some shops and garages. Merely because the non-residential area of the building was about 16% of the total area of the building it could not be reasonably said even in September 1979, that the said society was not a co-operative housing society. In every co-operative housing society there are some shops and garages. Merely because the non-residential area of the building was about 16% of the total area of the building it could not be reasonably said even in September 1979, that the said society was not a co-operative housing society. The earlier Government circulars were all superseded by circular dated 26th March, 1980 and Circular dated 2nd May, 1980. While deciding application of the petitioner dated 31st July, 1981 for statutory exemption form repair cess, the board misdirected itself in law by not considering the question as to whether the petitioner society was in fact and in law a co-operative housing society or not? And as to whether conditions of exemptions laid down in the Maharashtra Act No. 28 of 1977 were satisfied by the petitioner or not. The impugned order dated 17th February, 1985 passed by the board on the aforesaid application for exemption made by the society suffers form clear error of law apparent on the face of record. In any event and on any view of the matter the petitioner society was liable to be treated as co-operative housing society form 26th March, 1980. There was no change of facts. There was no change in the principal object of the Society. There was no change of law applicable to the petitioner. By the said application dated 29th January 1986, the petitioner merely sought amendment in respect of classification of the petitioner i.e. from “General Society” to “Housing Society”. It is well settled that all amendments relate back. By no stretch of imagination the petitioner could be treated as “General Society” at any point of time. Rule 10 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules clearly provides that only such societies which were not covered by categories 1 to 8 could be classified as “General Society”. The sub-classification in respect of “General Society” as provided in the Rules reads as under:- (a) Social (b) Commercial (c) Other It is beyond my comprehension as to why the petitioner society could be considered as a “General Society” with sub-classification 'Other' when the society throughout owned a residential building with very few shops and garages and all the residential flats were occupied by the members of the society. It took several years for the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to amend or correct the classification of the said society. It took several years for the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to amend or correct the classification of the said society. It is inexplicable as to why the office of Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies did not dispose of application dated 29th January, 1986 all these years. It is now being contended by the learned Government Counsel that the said letter dated 29th January, 1987 could not be considered as an application duly made for amendment in respect of classification of society as it was not made in prescribed form. The Court does not appreciate such technical and hypertechnical contentions coming from a welfare State. I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner society was entitled to exemption from the levy of repair cess as contemplated under section 83(1)(g) of the Act throughout as it was a co-operative housing society at all times or at any rate form 26th March, 1980 or at any rate from the date of application made to the Board for exemption i.e. from 31st July, 1981. I propose to grant relief to the petitioner in respect of this claim for exemption from repair cess from its date of application for exemption i.e. from 31-7-1981. In a matter of this nature, it would be unjust to make the petitioner suffer and pay repair cess for all these years when the petitioner is not at fault. 7. The petitioner society has satisfied every single condition of exemption stipulated under section 83(1)(g) of the Act. The certificate of classification by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot be treated as conclusive for purpose of availability of the said statutory exemption, even if it is fundamentally erroneous. The certificate of classification by the Registrar it is fundamentally erroneous, The certificate of classification by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is merely a prima facie evidence as to nature of the society and nothing more. The impugned order passed by the Board rejecting the application for statutory exemption being the order dated 17th November, 1985 suffers from clear error of law apparent on the face of record, and non-application of mind to the relevant facts and applicable provisions of law. 8. The impugned order passed by the Board rejecting the application for statutory exemption being the order dated 17th November, 1985 suffers from clear error of law apparent on the face of record, and non-application of mind to the relevant facts and applicable provisions of law. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the board and for Registrar of Co-operative Societies has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to statutory exemption from the levy of repair cess form 23rd June, 1988 and the petitioner cannot escape form the consequences of its own negligence by not pursuing the matter in Govt. time, (sic) with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner addressed a letter to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies for amendment in respect of classification of the said society for the first time on 29th January, 1986. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner did not make the said application in the prescribed form. The learned Counsel submits that according to the view taken by brother Justice Kapadia, the Board is expected to decide the question of classification for the purpose of applicability of section 83(1)(g) of the Act with reference to the classification of the society made by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under section 12 of the Act read with Rule 10 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. It is not possible to accept any of these submissions for more than one reason. The petitioner society did make an application for statutory exemption to the board on 31st July, 1981. Since then the petitioner society has been running from pillar to post. The Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 1977 does not make availability of statutory exemption from repair cess dependant on amendment of classification of the societies by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Board is an independent authority. The question to be asked is as to whether a co-operative housing society must necessarily lose benefit of statutory exemption under the Act for all these years merely because of erroneous classification of the society by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and merely because of delay caused by the Department in respect of such classification. The Co-operative Housing Societies cannot be deprived of its statutory right of exemption form the levy on such grounds. In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to statutory exemption from the levy at least from 31st July, 1981. 9. The Co-operative Housing Societies cannot be deprived of its statutory right of exemption form the levy on such grounds. In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to statutory exemption from the levy at least from 31st July, 1981. 9. I have carefully gone through the judgment of brother Justice Kapadia in Writ Petition No. 864 of 1987. I have reached the conclusion that the said judgment is clearly distinguishable. It cannot be forgotten that in this case the classification of the society is already amended by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies by his Order dated 23rd June, 1988. In the case before brother Justice Kapadia, the classification of the society as “General Society” was not so amended. 10. Shri A. R. Shinde, the learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 5 has submitted that the petitioners ought to have applied for correction or amendment in respect of erroneous classification expeditiously instead of making an application for the said purpose as late as 29th January, 1986. The answer to this criticism of learned Counsel is very simple. The availability of statutory exemption is to be decided by the Board and not by Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The petitioner made application for statutory exemption in the first instance to the board. Such an application was made by the petitioner to the Housing Board on 31st July, 1981. It is unfortunate that the Board took more than 4 years to decide the said application. The Board took and erroneous view in law. After receipt of the impugned order passed by the board i.e. order dated 17th November, 1985, the petitioner society promptly made the necessary application for amendment of the classification of the Society to the Registrar i.e. in January, 1986. In my view, delay if any on the part of the petitioner is well explained and it would not be proper to deprive the petitioner of its statutory right to exemption form levy on ground of alleged delay and procedural error, if any. 11. At one stage I was inclined to remand the mater to the board for purpose of it being sanctioned as to whether ½ total number of tenements were and are by its members and as to whether the building was structurally repaired at any time by the board. I thought that these two aspects may have to be factually checked up by the board on remand. I thought that these two aspects may have to be factually checked up by the board on remand. On reconsideration of the matter and after discussion with the learned Counsel in Court, I have reached the conclusion that no such remand is necessary. It has been averred in para 17 of the petition at page 20 that all the flats, shops and garages are owned and occupied by the members of the petitioner society. It has been averred in para 20 of the petition that no structural repairs to the said building have ever been carried out by the board. It was expressly stated evening letter dated 21st February, 1988 addressed to the Deputy Registrar that all the flats were occupied by members of the Co-operative Society. These allegations are not controverter before me. No affidavit in reply is filed by any of the respondents. The litigation is hanging fire, since 1981. It shall be travesty of justice if the matter is unnecessarily remanded. I have, therefore, decided to pass the final orders in the petition as deemed fit. 12. By Registered Deed of Assignment dated 23rd March, 1980, the property known as 'Pearl Mansion' was conveyed to the Society then known as 'Pearl Mansion Joint Venture Premises Co-operative Society Ltd.' and now known as 'Pearl Mansion Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.' Thus the title in respect of the said property vested in the Society. The Society is a separate legal entity. Thus section 83(1)(g) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of this case. 13. In the result the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute as indicated hereinafter. The impugned order dated 17th November, 1985 (Exhibit “C” to the petition) is quashed and set aside. All the demands made on the petitioner for payment of repair cess for the period commencing from 31st July, 1981 are also quashed. It is hereby declared that the petitioners were and are entitled to benefit of statutory exemption from the payment of repair cess for the period commencing form 31st July 1981. 14. By an order dated 24th February, 1988, S.C. Pratap, J., had granted interim relief to the petitioners on the condition that ½ of the total amount of arrears of the cess as well as current cess as per demand made be deposited in this Court. 14. By an order dated 24th February, 1988, S.C. Pratap, J., had granted interim relief to the petitioners on the condition that ½ of the total amount of arrears of the cess as well as current cess as per demand made be deposited in this Court. The Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to refund all the amounts deposited by the petitioner in this Court to the petitioner along with accrued interest thereon, if any after expiry of one month from today. 15. Having regard to the disposal of this petition on merits without any aid of proposed amendment to the petition the Chamber Summons does not survive. The Chamber Summons is dismissed as infructuous. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 16. The Prothonotary and Senior Master is authorized to act on ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by associate of this Court. 17. Issue of certified copy is expedited. Petition succeeds. -----