DIPTYMOYEE DATTA Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this writ petition dated February 20th, 2008 are seeking a mandamus quashing the consolidated rate notice of demand dated november 4th, 2007 issued by the assessor-collector (north/south) of the corporation, and the letter dated December 18th, 2007 sent to the first petitioner by its deputy assessor-collector (south ). By the notice of demand the corporation asked the assessees of the premises in question to pay property tax arrears for a large number of quarters falling between the first quarter of 1972 and the fourth quarter of 2005. By the letter dated December 18th, 2007 the deputy assessor supplied the requisite information in response to the first petitioner's application dated July 13th, 2007 under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(2.) MR Ali, counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that revised annual value effective from the second quarter of 1989-90 determined by the hearing officer of the corporation was questioned by the petitioners by filling a writ petition in this court, and that during its pendency the corporation undertook periodical revision of the annual value for the subsequent periods, though it could not do so. His further submission is that when on receipt of the notice of demand the first petitioner submitted an appeal dated December 20th, 2007 under s. 192 of the kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 requesting the municipal commissioner to exercise his power for reviewing the annual values determined for the periods mentioned therein, without first disposing of such appeal, the notice of demand could not be issued.

(3.) THE questions for decision therefore are: (i) whether during pendency of the writ petition connected with determination of annual value effective from the second quarter of 1989-90 the corporation could proceed to revise the annual value for the subsequent periods; (ii) whether the petitioners had any right to submit any appeal under s. 192 against the notice of demand, and, if so, whether without first giving decision in that the authorities of the corporation are empowered to enforce the notice of demand; and (iii) whether the petitioners are entitled to approach the writ court for an order quashing the letter dated december 18th, 2007.