Ravi Krishan Kapur - (1.) The Court : The petitioner is an occupant of a portion of premises no.57, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-71. The grievance of the petitioner is directed against an order of assessment dated 21 February, 2017 passed by the Hearing Officer XIV (Kolkata Municipal Corporation) in confirming the annual assessment orders in respect of the aforesaid premises. The petitioner challenges the valuation by the Corporation for the period from 4th quarter 2010-11, 2nd quarter 2012-13 and 4th quarter 2013-14. The valuation impugned by the petitioner aggregates to approximately Rs.85 lacs. The petitioner challenges the valuation arrived at by the Hearing Officer primarily on the ground that the same has been passed on the basis of actual rental value payable. The petitioner submits that this cannot be the basis of valuation. The petitioner also contends that no notice of the assessment was given to the lessor and as such the assessment is time barred. The petitioner further submits that no assessment could have been conducted for a period of three years prior to the date of revising order. The petitioner relies a decision reported in India Automobiles vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation reported in (2002) 3 SCC 388 and also relies an unreported decision passed in Commissioner of Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs. Hastings Property dated 11 February, 2011 passed by the Division Bench.
(2.) Mr. Alok Kumar Ghosh appearing on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation submits that the petitioner had been given an adequate opportunity of hearing and had availed of such opportunity and appeared before the Assessing Officer. He relies on Section 189(5) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 which provides for a remedy by way of a statutory appeal and submits that the writ petition is barred on the ground of alternative remedy. In any event, he further submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference whatsoever. In reply, Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the point of alternative remedy was not taken when the writ petition was admitted on 5 September, 2017. He further submits that this is a clear case of respondent authorities having acted in excess of jurisdiction and in view of the jurisdictional error the point of alternative remedy should not be entertained.
(3.) I have perused the pleadings and I have also considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The property in question is situated in the heart of Kolkata. The periods of assessment which have been impugned by the petitioner are for a staggering period of approximately nine years. The dues which are demanded by the Corporation in respect of the aforesaid premises are approximately Rs.85 lacs. Ordinarily, a High Court ought not to entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has an alternative remedy available to him. The rule that an alternative remedy must be exhausted before the jurisdiction under Article 226 has been characterised as a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and is a self-imposed restrained by Court rather than a rule of law. I am also aware that there are exceptions to this principle namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of natural justice; or (iii) the orders of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. ;