- (1.) THE petitioners have challenged an amendment of the Assessment Book as a result of which the annual value was increased "from Rs. 12,420/- to Rs. 2,56,360/- in one case and Rs. 3,54. 840/- in another. The petitioner Trust contends that the enhancement is meet unusual and shockingly disproportionate to the original value. It is contended by Mr. Pradip Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Trust that the violation of the principle of natural justice warranted an interference by the writ Court even though an alternative remedy was provided by the statute by way of filing an appeal before the Assessment tribunal. Mr. Ghosh further contends that the notices as served on the petitioner Trust were vague, lacking in material particulars and no speaking, order was at all issued and in reality no order was ever communicated to the petitioners.
(2.) THE petitioners contend further that the decision is on the face of it arbitrary since by one sweeping amendment the original value has been raised from Rs. 12,420/- to Rs. 2. 56,360/- in one case and to Rs. 3,54,640/- in another.
(3.) THE enhancement of annual value was made under Section 192 of the calcutta Municipal Corporation Act 1980 hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Act. The notice refers to Clauses (iv) and (vii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 as a ground for amendment. It is contended that the amendment of the Assessment Book under Section 192 of the Act is made under exceptional circumstances only when a real ground exists for such amendment, such as the discovery of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake which made it necessary to take recourse to the provisions for amendment in this, context. The reported judgment in Municipal council, Khurai vs. Kama! Kumar and Another reported in AIR 1965 SC 1321 is referred to. m one of the recent judgments of our Court to Sm. Shakuntala gupta vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1991 Calcutta 104, a learned single Judge of our Court held inter alia that "if the Municipal authority/ did not have any valid ground far making amendment to the Assessment Book, any person aggrieved can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court against any alleged illegal and ultra vires Act of the Municipal Authority. " it was further observed inter alia that it is not correct to say that the Municipal Authority without any valid reason can take steps for the amendment of the assessment. The section clearly provides under which circumstances the authority can re-open the assessment. If any such grounds were not there, the Municipal Authority could not issue any notice and if without any valid ground such action is taken, such act can be declared illegal or void by any Court of law. ";