- (1.) A notice under sub-section (2) of Section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was issued on 11th December, 1987 in respect of the premises concerned for amending the valuation with effect from 3rd quarter 1986-87. By an order dated 29th December, 1987 pursuant to the notice dated 11th December, 1987 valuation was assessed at Rs. 2,75,130/- against which an appeal was preferred. In the meantime by an order dated 30th September, 1999 the said proceeding was disposed of. The proposed valuation at Rs. 2,75,130/- was ultimately reduced to Rs. 1,85,490/- after hearing. Against this order a writ petition was filed which was disposed of by directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal. Accordingly an appeal was preferred. The appeal was disposed of by an order dated 17th February, 2000. The operative part of that order shows that the appeal was allowed on consent and the impugned order dated 29th December, 1987 was set aside with the observation that CMC will decide and dispose of the matter within three months from the date of communication of the order passed on appeal complying with all the formalities embedied in Section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act. The order had repeated that the matter is to be disposed of by the Authority within three months from the date of communication of the appellate order positively giving proper opportunities to the parties involved in the matter. In the writ petition nowhere it was mentioned on which date the said order dated 17th February, 2000 was communicated to the Authority of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. On the other hand a notice was issued on 12th May, 2000 fixing 17th May, 2000 as the date for hearing in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 17th February, 2000. This writ petition was moved against the said notice. By an order dated 17th May, 2000 this Court directed the petitioner to appear in the matter of submitting its written statement taking all the points. Accordingly the petitioner had appeared and submitted its written submission. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 20th June, 2000. On 20th June, 2000 it was found that proper notice was not served and as such a notice was directed to be served and accordingly a notice was issued on 6th July, 2000. It is alleged that the date was fixed on 10th July, 2000. But the petitioner wanted to move this High Court against the order dated 20th June, 2000 and therefore the petitioner sought for adjournment and prayed for a copy of the order dated 20th June, 2000. It is alleged that the same was never supplied to the petitioner. On the other hand the respondents are going to pass an order in the proceeding itself without attending through the written submission filed by the petitioner.
(2.) Mr. Ghosh, ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that since the appellate order was passed on consent and therein three months' time was stipulated, therefore, after the expiry of three months the Authority could not have proceeded with the matter without obtaining extension of time from the Tribunal. Therefore, the issue of notice of the proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction. He further contends that the proper course was to approach the Tribunal for extension of time by the Municipal Authority and if it is denied in that event it should have approached this Court for extension of time. Had there been any extension of time in that event there would not have been any difficulty. In these facts he prays that the proceedings should be quashed until an estension of time is obtained from the Tribunal.
(3.) Mr. Barin Banerjee, ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand contends that the petitioner had appeared and submitted its written submission. Therefore, he had submitted to the jurisdiction. Now he cannot challenge the same. Secondly he contends that the question which is raised by Mr. Ghosh is purely technical and as such should not be given much importance. Since the Municipal Authority has jurisdiction to proceed with the matter in terms of the appellate order, therefore, the technicality should not stand in the way.;