[2025:RJ-JP:6254-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3522/2008 Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, having its registered office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur through its Authorized Signatory. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Finance, Group-IV, Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme Jaipur. 2. The Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. 3. The Assessor, Urban Development Tax, Civil Lines Zone, Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3523/2008 Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, having its power house at Heerapura, Ajmer Road and Registered Office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur through its Authorized Signatory. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Finance, Group-IV, Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme Jaipur. 2. The Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. 3. The Assessor, Urban Development Tax, Civil Lines Zone, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vaibhava Kasliwal, Adv. for Mr.S. Kasliwal, Sr. Adv. For Respondent(s) : None present. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order [2025:RJ-JP:6254-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-3522/2008] 12/02/2025 1. None has put his appearance on behalf of the respondents. Similar was the position on 05.02.2025. 2. These two petitions are decided by this order as the facts involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3522/2008. 3. The Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (‘RRVPNL’) filed a writ petition challenging the levy of urban development tax. 4. The case set up is that the petitioner was entitled to exemption under Section 107 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short ‘the 1959 Act’) which was applicable during the relevant period. Vide order dated 16.04.2008 the recovery of demand created was stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the tax demanded. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was complied with. 6. The issue as to whether the RRVPNL shall fall within the ambit of Section 107(2) of the 1959 Act needs adducing of evidence and to consider factual aspect. The petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 139 of the 1959 Act. There was a requirement of pre-deposit but the appellate authority has a power of waiver. 7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case considering that these writ petitions are pending since 2008 and 50% of the payment was deposited as per the direction given by this Court, the petitioners are relegated to the remedy of appeal. 8. In case the appeal is filed within eight weeks from today, the [2025:RJ-JP:6254-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-3522/2008] same shall be considered to have been filed within limitation. The 50% amount deposited shall be considered as compliance of pre- deposit. 9. Considering that the matter pertains to 2007-08 the appellate authority shall make a sincere endeavour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. 10. These writ petitions are disposed of. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR), J (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J Himanshu Soni/9-10