W.P. 503 of 2016. Case: ABP Private Limited and Ors. Vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | W.P. 503 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Anindya Kumar Mitra, Sr. Adv., Subrata Kr. Basu and S. Dutta, Advs. and For Respondents: Alok Kr. Ghosh, Sima Chakraborty and Achinta Banerjee, Advs. |
| Judges | Harish Tandon, J. |
| Issue | Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, (West Bengal) - Sections 174, 188, 188(3), 189 |
| Judgement Date | March 10, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
Harish Tandon, J.
-
This is the second round of litigation against the annual valuation fixed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with effect from Third Quarter 2007-2008 in relation to the premise No. 6, Prafulla Sarkar Street, Kolkata - 700 001. Prior to the instant Writ Petition, another Writ Petition being W.P. 462 of 2009 was filed before this Court challenging the consolidated rate bill on various grounds including that the assessment order passed by the hearing officer deciding the objection was never served on the petitioner, which is one of the statutory conditions provided under Section 188(3) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
-
The Hon'ble Single Bench, while disposing of the said Writ Petition on 2nd April, 2015 observed that the bills annexed to the Writ Petition having raised without service of the copy of the order passed by the hearing officer is illegal and bad and therefore set aside. It was further observed that the said order shall not prevent the Corporation Authorities from raising bills for realization of the property tax on the Writ Petition in accordance with law.
-
The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Intra-Court Appeal being APO 198 of 2015. The Hon'ble Division Bench modified the order agreeing with the decision of the Hon'ble Single Bench whereby and whereunder the bills annexed to the Writ Petition were set aside and the subsequent bills raised on the basis of the purported assessment order was held to be uninterfered with. The Hon'ble Division Bench observed that if the bills annexed to the Writ Petition were found to be invalid because of non-service of the assessment order by the Corporation the subsequent bills based upon the same could not be held valid. The Division Bench set aside all subsequent bills, which were either annexed to the Writ Petition or subsequently raised upon the petitioner without touching the veracity, legality and validity of the assessment order. However, a leave was granted to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order in accordance with law as the subject matter of the writ was restricted on those bills without serving the copy of the assessment order.
-
Pursuant to such leave, the present Writ Petition is filed challenging the assessment order on various grounds including the ground that it lacks reasons.
-
Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate, appearing for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the impugned order of assessment is lacking reasons while accepting the proposed valuation of the Chief Manager (Revenue). According to him, the determination of objection by the hearing officer is not a mere formality but requires conscious application of mind to be reflected in providing reasons. He vehemently submitted that the annual valuation of a property was increased to an astronomical amount without disclosing the factors/materials available with the authority. He, thus, relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in case of Paresh R. Kampani Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 2 CLJ 262 and a Division Bench judgment in case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vs. Paresh R. Kampani & Ors. reported in (1998) 2 CLJ 87. Mr. Mitra further submitted that the notice of hearing served upon the petitioner reflected the ground for revision of annual valuation and therefore the authority should restrict its determination on the said ground and should not travel beyond it. He, thus submits that fixation of annual valuation on the ground other than mentioned in the hearing of notice is liable to be set aside and places reliance upon an unreported judgment of this Court rendered in case of Gopal Ji Shaw & Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. (W.P. 791 of 2013 decided on 25.01.2017).
-
On the other hand, Mr. Alok Kr. Ghosh, learned Counsel, appearing for the Corporation submits that the hearing officer recorded the reasons for revision of the annual valuation in the preceding order and therefore the impugned order of assessment must be read conjointly with it. He, thus submits that the conjoint reading of order dated 09.03.2009 and 06.04.2009 passed by the hearing officer would...
To continue reading
Request your trial