- (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings under the U. P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter called the Act). The facts of the case, as contained in the petition, are that the petitioner is a limited company at Kanpur and carries on the business of manufacture and sale of cloth within the limits of Kanpur Corporation. At the commencement of quinquennial assessment for the years 1953 to 1958 the then Municipal Board Kanpur assessed the annual value of the petitioners premises at Rs. 1,23,500. It seems the petitioner Companys premises were, later on, extended and hence the Municipal Board increased the annual value of the premises to Rs. 1,42,583 towards the close of the assessment for the years 1953 to 1958. At the commencement of the quinquennial assessment for the years 1958 to 1963 the Municipal Board revised the assessment of annual value of petitioners premises and fixed the same at Rupees 2,86,140. Notice regarding the proposal for enhancing the annual value was issued to the petitioner. Objections were filed on behalf of the petitioner and they were heard by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board in February, 1958. By an order dated 17th March, 1958, the objections of the petitioner were rejected and the annual value of the petitioners premises was fixed at Rs. 2,80,750.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the assessment order passed by the Municipal Board the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. Allahabad Division, which was heard by the Additional Commissioner. Along with the appeal the petitioner did not file certified copy of the order of assessment passed by the Municipal Board. The appeal was filed on 16th February, 1959, but the copy of the assessment order was filed on 6th October, 1959. The learned Additional Commissioner, by his order dated 29th December, 1959, held that the appeal was time-barred as there was no application for condoning the delay in filing the certified copy of the order of assessment. The petitioner then filed an application under S. 164(2) of the Act before the learned Additional Commissioner and prayed that the order dated 29th December, 1959, be reviewed. This application was also dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated 22nd March, 1960. By that order the learned Commissioner held that a perusal of Section 161 of the Act implies that a certified copy of the order, appealed against, must be filed along with the memorandum of appeal.
(3.) FEELING dissatisfied by the two orders passed by the Additional Commissioner the petitioner has come to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and prays that the two orders be quashed. It is further prayed that the Additional Commissioner be directed to hear and decide the petitioners appeal on merits in accordance with law.;