MANOSHI MOHOLANOBISH Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, a resident in a flat at Neelachal Abasan Co-operative Society in Kolkata, has challenged the action of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (for short "the Corporation") in issuing notices for hearing under Sections 184(3) and 184(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 ("the Act" for short) for assessment of the annual valuation for the first quarter 1998-99, second quarter 2001-02 and first quarter 2002-03 on several grounds, - that he hearing officer lacked jurisdiction to decide the dispute, written objection dated 27th October, 2003 was not considered and the order passed by the said officer on 7th November, 2003 was not valid since it was neither speaking nor reasoned. Though it has been alleged that the copy of the order was not supplied, it appears during the pendency of the petition it was communicated.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the action of the Corporation was without jurisdiction as assessment could not be in vacuum, since the notices at pages 29 and 31 of the writ petition proposing valuation could not be correlated to the grounds stated therein. Since there was not valid ground, there was no taxable event. Even assuming notices were valid, still it was not in consonance with Section 180 of the Act as the procedure for revision of annual valuation enumerated in sub-section 2(i) to (ix) of the said section was not followed which was a prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 184 of the Act. Since in the notices for the first-quarter 1998-99 and first quarter 2002-03 the words "grounds mentioned over leaf" were struck off, there were no grounds and, thus, it was not compatible with Section 180(2)(i) to (ix). Therefore, the said two notices were not valid. Since notice for the second quarter 2001-02 which proposed revision on account of rise in rent was subsequent to 1998-99, that too could not be sustained. As there was no notice for revising the valuation for the fourth quarter 1998-99, the order passed by the Hearing Officer for the said period was without jurisdiction. Submission was made that the Hearing Officer instead of proceeding objectively should have proceeded in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 174 of the Act. Therefore, as the procedure laid down under the Act such as preparation of assessment list and its publication was not adhered to, the action culminating in passing the order was not valid. Thus, there was misuse and abuse of power and, hence the action of the Hearing Officer in passing the order is hit by the doctrine of procedural ultra vires. Since the Hearing Officer is a quasi-judicial authority he should have acted within the parameters of the Act. In support of his submission reliance was placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in Ramchandra v. Govind, AIR 1975 SC 915 ; Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 334 ; M/s. Shri Sitaram Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1277 ; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872 ; R. K. Kaura v. Municipal Commr., MCD & Ors., (2005) 11 SCC 524 ; Lt. Col. P. R. Chaudhuary v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2000)4 SCC 577 ; Food Corporation of India v. State of Punjab, (2001)1 SCC 291 ; Municipal Council, Khurai & Am. v. Kamal Kumar & Anr., AIR 1965 SC 1321.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation submitted that though the petitioner was in occupation of her flat, no return was filed which was in violation of Section 178(5) of the Act. The petitioner also chose not to file return under Section 182A. It appeared from the letter dated 25th April, 2003 issued by the petitioner, appearing at page 24 of the affidavit-in-opposition, that for the purpose of assessment the petitioner was served with the notice for submission of return. Thereafter, assessment was made under Section 179 following the procedure laid down under the Act. Submission was made that in compliance with the provisions of the Act, notices were issued for hearing. Objections were invited and considered. Hearing was granted. It appears from the written objection dated 27th October, 2003 (annexure P-2 to the writ petition) filed by the petitioner that prayer was made for reduction of annual valuation and for commencement of assessment year from first quarter 1999. No procedural lapse was pointed out. Thereafter, taking note of the written objection as well as oral submission, on 7th November, 2003 order was passed by the Hearing Officer fixing the annual valuation at Rs. 13,620/- effective from fourth quarter 1998-99 as a special consideration following the quarter when the society got drainage connection. Therefore, as the legal parameters were met, there is not merit in the writ petition. If aggrieved, the petitioner should have availed herself of the statutory remedy and could have preferred appeal under Section 189 of the Act before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Kaushalya Khatri & Anr., (2002)1 Cal HN 1 ; Subrata Basu Mullick v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2002)1 Cal HN 181 ; C. M. C. & Ors. v. Bala Bestos India Ltd. & Ors., (1998)1 Cal HN 492 and the judgment of the Apex Court in H. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission v. H. P. State Electricity Board, (2006)9 SCC 233 ; Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. M/s. Trigon Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 1579 in support of his submission.