- (1.) In the writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30th August, 2011 passed by the Hearing Officer-II, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the respondent No. 3, determining the annual valuation of the premises in question with effect from 4th quarter 2007-2008 on the ground that it is excessive, it does not disclose the particulars and the basis of computation with regard to the rise in rent since the last valuation and the approach is mechanical as the assessment does not take note of the written objections filed. Moreover, the order is discriminatory, unreasonable, non-speaking and as there was improper exercise of jurisdiction, it is a nullity. Mr. Aloke Ghosh, learned advocate for the petitioners, reiterating the statements in the writ petition submits since the impugned order does not take note of the two written objections filed and lacks clarity, it cannot be sustained. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Jai Prakash Singh, 2007 AIR(SC) 1363; Sant Lal Gupta vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, 2010 13 SCC 336; Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India, 2010 13 SCC 427 and Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. Prakash Dal Mill, 2011 6 SCC 714 in support of his submission.
(2.) Mr. Sandip De, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, submits that there is no challenge to the notice of hearing pursuant to which the petitioners had appeared. Since the written objections do not disclose any ground of challenge to the proposed valuation and as the written objections were far from adequate, as evident from a comparison with the statements made in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the writ petition wherein details have been given regarding the occupancy of the premises in question which were not before the Hearing Officer, the Officer had no option but to proceed on the basis of such objections. As in this petition there is no challenge to the jurisdiction of the Officer passing the impugned order and since the impugned order is an appealable order under section 189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, (for short the "Act") the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his submission, Mr. De has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Star Paper Mills Ltd. vs. State of UP, 2006 10 SCC 201.
(3.) Admittedly, the petitioners were served with the notice regarding the proposed enhancement of the annual valuation. The petitioners had submitted two written objections. As evident from the order-sheet annexed to the writ petition, the petitioners were heard and the impugned order dated 30th August, 2011 was passed. The question is whether the impugned order takes note of the contents in the written objections and is adequate and reasonable. In this context it is appropriate to refer to section 186 and the relevant portion of section 188 of the Act. section 186 is as under :- Subject to the provisions of section 181 or section 182, any objection to the annual value of a land or building as entered in the assessment list shall be made by the owner or the person liable to pay the [property tax], in writing, to the Municipal Commissioner before the date fixed in the notice under section 184 [or section 185] and shall state in what respect the annual value is disputed.;