- (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 9th April, 2007 passed by the Hearing Officer-IX, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, revising the annual valuation with regard to the premises No.1, Pratap Ghosh Lane, Kolkata-700006. It appears that pursuant to the notices under Section 184(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (for short "the Act") the petitioners had appeared before the Hearing Officer and thereafter, the impugned order was passed determining the annual valuation commencing from 2nd quarter 1985-1986, 2nd quarter 1991-1992, 2nd quarter 1997-1998 and 2nd quarter 2003-2004. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal. As evident from the statements made in paragraph-7 of the writ petition, the petitioners from time to time made enquiries regarding the pendency of the said appeal and were informed that the matter was not ready for hearing. In December, 2011, the petitioners came to know that the appeals would be entertained by the Tribunal only upon payment of Rs.11,66,704/- approximately. According to the petitioners, deposit of such amount to get the appeal entertained and thereafter to prosecute the appeal is an onerous condition. Hence, prayer is to quash the order alleged to be arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Submission is appropriate order may be passed in view of the law laid down in Surendra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors.,0 98 CalWN 1116, that in case pre-deposit is not made, as there is no appeal in the eye of law before the Tribunal, a citizen is entitled to file a writ petition.
(2.) It is an admitted fact that in the instant case, against the order dated 9th April, 2007, the petitioners have filed appeal before the Tribunal without making any pre-deposit under Section 189(6) of the Act. As no pre-deposit has been made under Section 189(6), there is no appeal in the eye of law. However, assuming the order dated 9th April, 2007 is arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as contended by the petitioners, in that event, they should have availed themselves of the alternative remedy by filing the writ petition promptly. Instead, challenging the order, they have filed the writ petition after about five years when the order under challenge had become "final" under Section 190 of the Act. Since, under the statute, order passed by the Hearing Officer had become "final" under Section 190, it cannot be unsettled at this stage. In this regard the scheme of the Act, particularly as laid down in Sections 188, 189 and 190, cannot be ignored. Moreover, it has not been stated that the appeal preferred before the Tribunal has abated. Though there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down in the judgment in Surendra Enterprises that in case no pre-deposit is made there is no appeal in the eye of law because the appeal cannot be entertained by the Tribunal on the ground that precondition for filing the appeal was not fulfilled, however, the said judgment is not applicable on facts as evidently therein the petitioner, challenging the order, filed the writ petition at the earliest. That apart, in the said judgment, the issue whether the order determining the annual valuation achieved finality under Section 190 was not considered. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photo copy of this order on the usual undertakings.;