Debangsu Basak,J. - (1.) The petitioners have assailed the order dated July 24, 2019 passed by the Hearing Officer IV, of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, in this present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioners have a statutory alternative efficacious remedy available by way of an appeal. According to him, since the writ petitioners did not exhaust such remedy, the writ petition should not be entertained.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, notwithstanding the existence of a statutory alternative remedy, a writ petition as of the present nature is maintainable. In support of such contention, he has relied upon ( Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors , 1998 8 SCC 1.), an unreported decision of the Division Bench rendered in APO No. 213 of 2004 W.P. No. 1050 of 1996 (Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Hastings Property & Ors.) , ( Raza Textiles Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Rampur , 1973 1 SCC 633), an unreported decision of the Division Bench rendered in W.P. No. 23027 (W) of 2017 (M/s. Universal Consortium of Engineers (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) dated February 18, 2019 and ( India Automobiles (1960) Ltd. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr , 2002 3 SCC 388).;