ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per V.G. Palshikar, Acg. C.J.) 1. In this petition, Small Scale Entrepreneurs Association, Mahape Industries Welfare Association, Managing Partner of National Engineering Corporation and Managing Director of M/s. Protolab Electrotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. are the petitioners. The challenge is that the levy of property tax by Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation is without authority of law and, therefore, liable to be struck down. Identical prayers in relation to Jalgaon Municipal Council were made before a Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad. That decision is in M. Sector Industries v. State of Maharshtra, reported in 2002 (1) Bom. C.R. 725, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not tenable as a person aggrieved by any tax may file an appeal before the appropriate forum and the petition was, therefore, dismissed. It has, therefore, the effect of rejecting an identical contention in relation to levy of property tax under a Municipal law. 2. The Supreme Court has in Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija v. Collector, Thane, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1893 , observed as under:- "Pursuit of the law, however glamorous it is, has its own limitation on the Bench. In a multi-judge Court, the Judges are bound by precedents and procedure. They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no authority. The judicial decorum and legal propriety demand that where a single judge or a Division Bench does not agree with the decision of a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the matter shall be referred to a larger Bench. It is a subversion of judicial process not to follow this procedure." We have no manner of doubt, therefore, that we must observe judicial discipline. There is no reason to take any different view than the one taken by the Division Bench at Aurangabad in relegating the case. The petitioners are, therefore, relegated to the remedy of an appeal under section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. 3. It is made clear that if such appeals are filed by any member of the Association, the appellate authority shall consider the same only on merits. The petitioners are, therefore, relegated to the remedy of an appeal under section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. 3. It is made clear that if such appeals are filed by any member of the Association, the appellate authority shall consider the same only on merits. The Supreme Court has laid down in Danda Rajeshwari v. Bodavula Hanumayamma, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 199 that the Court or Tribunal when it relegates a litigant to the alternative remedy of an appeal or such other similar remedy has the power to issue directions to the authority to hear the matter which is relegated. We are, therefore, fortified in directing that if appeals are preferred by any of the members of the petitioner-Association within a reasonable time of eight weeks from today, the appellate forum shall consider the appeal on merits and shall not dismiss them only on the ground of limitation. 4. All contentions raised in this petition regarding the authority to levy tax and the quantum of tax shall remain open to the individual petitioner for being agitated. The petition is, therefore, dismissed for the existence of an alternate remedy.