Judgment P.S. Asopa, J.-By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the demand notice of the Municipal Council, Jaipur (now Municipal Corporation) dated 111.1988 (Annexure-3), order of the Administrator of the Municipal Council, Jaipur dated 012.1989 (Annexure-5) in the capacity of Revising Authority, appellate order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 13.07.1992 (Annexure-7) and the order dated 112.1998 (Annexure-11) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur in Revision. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Collector has dismissed his appeal against the demand notice and the order of the Administrator on the preliminary ground that amount of tax has not been deposited and no stay application has been filed, which has also been upheld by Divisional Commissioner vide its order dated 112.1998 without entering into the merit of the case. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Public Ltd. Company and purchased the factory and other assets from M/s Rohtas Industries Ltd., a factory engaged in the manufacture of Vanaspati, Ghee etc. w.e.f. 31.07.1984. The petitioner-Company received a notice from Municipal Council, Jaipur for assessment of house tax on 012.1987, in response to which the petitioner-Company submitted the requisite information on 26.04.1988. For the first time the petitioner-Company received a demand notice dated 111.1988 of assessment of house tax for the period from 1974-75 to 1987-88. The petitioner-Company filed objections against the aforesaid assessment/ demand under Section 117(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short “the Act of 1959) before the revising authority which were dismissed by the Administrator on 012.1989. In the objections, the petitioner-Company has denied any liability prior to 31.07.1984 and has further taken objection regarding procedure, method and assessment of the quantum of tax. Against the demand notice dated 111.1988 as well as the order of the revising authority dated 012.1989, petitioner-Company filed an appeal under Section 139 before the Collector, Jaipur, which was dismissed on the ground that before filing appeal and the stay application, the petitioner ought to have filed receipt of the deposit of the amount of tax or exemption application, which has not been filed, therefore, the appeal which has been filed without receipt of deposit of the amount of tax is not liable to be entertained. 3. 3. Against the said order, the petitioner-Company filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur and the same was dismissed on 112.1998 whereby the order of the Collector was confirmed. 4. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that he has filed appeal along with the stay application and there is no need to file any separate exemption application for invoking Proviso to Section 140 of the Act of 1959. The Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner has not considered the said Proviso in a correct manner which does not require any separate application, rather the same give discretion to the Collector to pass an appropriate order on stay application for deposit of smaller amount of tax or entertain the appeal without deposit of the tax. 5. Respondent No. 1 Municipal Corporation, Jaipur has filed reply and submitted that in view of Sub-section 140(b) of the Act of 1959, no appeal can be heard and determined unless the amount claimed from the applicant has been deposited by him in the Municipal office. In support of the submission, the respondent placed reliance on the order dated 01.04.1999 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1534 of 1999 (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. The Municipal Corporation, Jaipur & Ors.). 6. I have gone through the record of the Writ Petition and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. 7. First, it would be useful to quote the relevant Section 140 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, which reads as under :-“140. 6. I have gone through the record of the Writ Petition and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. 7. First, it would be useful to quote the relevant Section 140 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, which reads as under :-“140. Limitation and preliminary deposit of tax claimed.-No such appeal shall be heard and determined unless - .(a) the appeal is, in the case of tax assessed on the annual letting value of building or lands or both, brought within thirty days next after the date of communication of the order (exclusive of the time requisite for obtaining a copy thereof) and, in the case of any other tax, within thirty days next after the date of the receipt of the notice of assessment of or alternation of assessment or, if no notice has been given, within thirty days next after the date of the first demand under the assessment or alteration of assessment; and .(b) the amount claimed from the applicant has been deposited by him in the Municipal office; Provided that the appellate authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on such terms and conditions as it may impose, entertain an appeal without deposit of the amount mentioned in Clause (b) or on deposit of such smaller amount as the said authority may direct.” 8. The appeal before the Collector was filed under Section 139 of the Act of 1959 but the same is to be heard and determined as per Section 140 which speaks about the deposit of the tax but the discretion has been given to the Collector for reasons to be recorded in writing and on such terms and conditions as it may impose, entertain an appeal without deposit of the amount mentioned in Clause (b) or on deposit of such smaller amount as the said authority may direct. Discretion of the said Proviso can be exercised by passing an order on stay application to deposit the amount of tax for entertaining the appeal before finally hearing and determining the main appeal. 9. I am of the view that no separate application is required to invoke the said discretion of Proviso of Section 140(b) of the Act of 1959, for the reason that the said section has not made receipt of the deposit of the tax as a pre-requisite or sine qua non for entertaining the appeal. 9. I am of the view that no separate application is required to invoke the said discretion of Proviso of Section 140(b) of the Act of 1959, for the reason that the said section has not made receipt of the deposit of the tax as a pre-requisite or sine qua non for entertaining the appeal. The only restriction is for final hearing and final determination without passing any order under the said Proviso. 10. The contention of the Municipal Corporation of pre deposit receipt of amount of tax alongwith appeal was not accepted by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1534/99 (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. The Municipal Corporation, Jaipur & Ors.,) decided on 01.04.1999, cited by the Counsel for the Municipal Corporation and the Court has directed the Collector to decide the said application within 15 days and till then no coercive steps shall be taken. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order is as under :- “Mr. Manoj Sharma, learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation has submitted that in view of Section 140 of the Act of 1959 Sub-clause (b), the petitioner’s appeal is not fit to be entertained or any stay order is fit to be passed in his favour until entire amount claimed is deposited by the petitioner. However, Mr. Kasliwal has further stretched this matter by contending that this provision does not come to a stand-still at this stage as the proviso to this section lays down that if in the opinion of the competent authority a lesser amount is required to be paid before the appeal is entertained, an order may be passed but the competent authority has not even dealt with the application of the petitioner for grant of stay as it is still pending. Since the discretion regarding payment of a lesser amount towards the payment of tax amount lies with the Collector, the petitioner is left with the liberty to approach the Collector, Jaipur in order to impress upon him whether any amount less than what has been claimed can be paid by the petitioner. It is expected of the Collector that before he insists upon the petitioner to pay the entire amount of house tax, he will consider whether his appeal is fit to be entertained by payment of any amount less than what has been claimed. It is expected of the Collector that before he insists upon the petitioner to pay the entire amount of house tax, he will consider whether his appeal is fit to be entertained by payment of any amount less than what has been claimed. The petitioner’s stay application, therefore, be considered by the Collector expeditiously and unless an order is passed on the petitioner’s application for stay, pending with the Collector, within 15 days, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation”. 11. In view of the above, the contentions of the petitioner are accepted and the contentions of the respondents are rejected. 12. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order of the Collector dated 13.07.1992 (Annexure-7) and the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 112.1998 (Annexure-11) are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Collector, Jaipur for passing an appropriate order on the stay application for deposit of amount of tax under Proviso to Section 140(b) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents.