R.R.K.TRIVEDI, J. - (1.) In this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and learned counsel for parties have agreed that this petition may be decided finally at this stage.
(2.) By means of this petition petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 24-10-1991, Annexure III to the writ petition, by which it has been communicated that the valuation of the property of the petitioner for purposes of tax has been fixed as Rupees 1,32,49,561/- on the basis of the report of the enquiry committee dated 24-10-1991 and the order of the Nagar Pramukh of the same date. Though Annexure III to the writ petition is a communication of the order dated 24-10-1991, however, a copy of the detailed order has been filed as Annexure III to the counter affidavit. At this place, certain facts which are not in dispute between the parties may be mentioned Assessment and valuation of the property of the petitioner for realizing tax was made earlier by a Sub-Committee of respondent No.1 by order dated 260-9-1991 which is Annexure I to the writ petition. By this order the total valuation of the property was Rupees 76,30,000/-. The order was duly authenticated as Chairman of the Sub-Committee appointed for five years's assessment of the house tax, as well as, Chairman of Sub-Committee quarterly house tax, put their signatures under Section 210 of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In pursuance of the aforesaid order the amount of the (sic) payable was Rs. 9,53,750.00. After deducting rebate at the rate of 2 1/2% the net tax of Rs. 7,63,000.00 was paid by the petitioner. It appears that with regard to the valuation and tax paid in respect of the property of the petitioner, a report was submitted by Chief Tax Assessment Officer of respondent No. 1 on 5-10-1991. The report is Annexure V to the counter affidavit. The points mentioned in this report are very material for deciding the present case which shall be referred to a little later at appropriate place. This report suggested an action under Section 213 of the Act. On the basis of this report a Sub-Committee appears to have been appointed by the Nagar Pramukh vide his order dated 16-10-1991 which is Annexure IV to the counter affidavit. The Sub-Committee held its meeting on 24-10-1991 and same day petitioner's management was informed on telephone about the proceedings and in response to the telephonic message Shri O. P. Sharma, Liaison Officer of the petitioner attended the meeting. Same day the Sub-Committee concluded the proceedings and enhanced the annual valuation from Rs.76,30,000.00 to Rs.1,32,49,561.00. The tax payable on this valuation would be Rupees 16,56,195/-. The petitioner by order dated 17-12-1991, Annexure VI to the writ petition, was required to pay Rs.13,24,956.00 after deducting the amount of rebate admissible and as petitioner had already paid Rs.7,63,000.00, he was required to pay remaining amount of Rs.5,61,956.00. Aggrieved by the aforesaid enhancement of the annual valuation of the property, and resultant increase in the demand of the tax petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The challenge by Shri Vijai Bahadur Singh, advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner, is particularly based on Section 213 of the Act as a 30 days notice required under the aforesaid provision and opportunity of filing objection was not given. It has also been submitted that the proceedings were wholly void and illegal as no opportunity of hearing was given and the order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. It has also been submitted that the message by telephone could not be a substitute of the notice under the Act.
(3.) Shri M. D. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respodent, on the other hand, has resisted the claim of the petitioner mainly on three grounds. The first submission is that the order impugned was by way of correcting the clerical and arithmetical error contemplated under clause (g) of Section 213(1) of the Act and for such correction no notice was required. The second submission is that in response to the telephonic message representative of the petitioner actually appeared and participated in the hearing and hence there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. The last submission is that before approaching this Court petitioner filed appeal in the court of learned Judge Small Causes, under Section 472 of the Act which was registered as case No. 97 of 1991 and hence as the petitioner had already availed alternative remedy, the present writ petition is not legally maintainable.;