V. K. SINGHAL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition against the appellate order dated 15-12-1993 by which he was directed to pay the municipal taxes from 1-4-1988 to the tune of Rs. 1,90,000/- on the income of Rs. 3,80,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/ -. ( 2 ) NUMBER of contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are factually disputed and could be agitated before the district judge to whom the second appeal lies under Rule 20 (a) of the taxation rules under schedule iii of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Provisions of Rule 20 (a) of the rules require payment of tax before filing the appeal. Provisions of Rule 20 (a) are as under. "20. (a) an appeal shall lie to the district court, having jurisdiction against any decision of the taxation appeals committee constituted under Rule 18 or any order of the divisional commissioner under Rule 19 but no such appeal shall be heard by the said court, unless the petition of appeal has been presented within thirty days from the date of such decision or Order, as the case may be, and the tax has been paid within the said period. Explanation. in the case of tax leviable by half yearly instalments the requirements of this clause as to payment of tax shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the half yearly instalment due under the order appealed against has been paid". ( 3 ) AS the various questions which have been raised are disputed questions of fact, it is not proper to adjudicate this matter in the extraordinary jurisdiction, it may be an appropriate case that without directing for filing the appeal under Rule 20 (a), this petition could be disposed of by this court as observed in the case of khan sahib abdul shakoor v corporation of the city of Bangalore, where the remedy of appeal is not considered as efficacious remedy as to bar relief under article 226. It is not in all cases that this court has to entertain the writ petition when the district judge has the power of second appellate authority against the decision of the taxation appeals committee. It is not in all cases that this court has to entertain the writ petition when the district judge has the power of second appellate authority against the decision of the taxation appeals committee. The difficulty which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents are taking steps for realisation of dues for all the years. Issue of notice for realisation of dues stand on the different footing than the right of appeal. The appeal is required to be filed along with the proof of payment of tax. In the explanation it is also pointed out that if the half yearly instalment has been paid then it will be considered as sufficient compliance. What is contemplated by Rule is that tax in accordance with the order appealed has to be deposited and that order of appeal could be for the year or for six months as the unit of assessment is one year or six months under the act. The circumstance may change in the subsequent year which may result in variance of the amount of tax and therefore what is happening in the subsequent year is not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of requirement of deposit of tax for maintainability of appeal. The petitioner is required to deposit the tax for only one year. ( 4 ) THE petitioner may deposit the said amount within four weeks and may file the appeal before the district judge in a week thereafter. If the payment is made in the aforesaid period and the appeal is also filed in the aforesaid period no objection regarding limitation would be raised. ( 5 ) PETITION stands disposed of with the above observations. --- *** --- .