CHUNILAL KANHAIYALALL Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, PALASHBARI TOWN COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226, Constitution of India for writs of the nature of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:

(2.) MESSRS . Chunilal Kanhaiyalall, petitioners, owned 3 holdings in Palasbari town. We are concerned in this case with holding No. 60 in Ward No. III. The Town Committee of Palashbari constituted under Section 328, Assam Municipal Act of 1923 passed a resolution in an ordinary meeting of the committee on 26 -10 -1949, authorising the Chairman and Dr. Padmeswar, Goswami to revise the valuation of holdings and assessments. On 25 -2 -1950, the valuators submitted their valuation list and the assessment was revised. The Chairman of the Board then caused a notice dated 27 -2 -1950 to be published notifying the revised valuation and inviting objections to that valuation. According to the revised valuation, the annual value of the petitioner's holding No. 60, Ward No. III, was determined at Rs. 3900/ - and the tax assessed thereon was Rs. 487 -8 -0 for one year. On 29 -3 -1950, the petitioner applied for a review of the assessment. The valuation was challenged as discriminatory and excessive. It is averred that the Chairman of the Municipality (respondent) failed to appoint a committee to hear and determine the aforesaid application as provided for by Section 89, Assam Municipal Act and that at a special meeting of the town committee held on 5 -6 -50 the petitioner's application for review was rejected. The petitioner was not heard nor was he given any opportunity to appear and prove his case. The resolution rejecting the petitioner's application for review is challenged as ultra vires and illegal.

(3.) A notice dated 22 -6 -51 was then served on the petitioners demanding the tax levied in respect of the 3 holdings that belonged to them. The petitioners again applied to the Chairman for disposal of, their review application according to law, as it had been rejected in their absence without there having any chance of presenting their view -point. On 15 -9 -51 the town committee refused to re -open the matter and ordered that the petitioners should pay up the arrears of tax within 7 days. The tax levied has been paid. The petitioners now pray that the resolution rejecting their application for review be quashed, and that the respondent be directed by a writ of mandamus to hear and determine the application for review in accordance with law.