J.K.Biswas, J. - (1.)The writ petition (No. 2991 of 1993) filed by the appellants was dismissed by the learned single Judge by judgment dated 16th June 1999. The present appeal is against this judgment.
(2.)The writ petition was filed challenging an order dated 22nd June 1993. It was passed by the Hearing Officer-XI appointed under section 187 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Such order was passed in course of hearing of the assessment case in respect of premises Nos. 15A Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta and 8A Chowringhee Place, Calcutta. The dispute is regarding revision of annual valuation of these two premises by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The order of the Hearing Officer reads as follows: ORDER
"Minutes of discussion and orders dated 14.6.93 may pertinently be recalled with reference to the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta on 19.11.92. I have consulted the aforesaid orders and applied my mind to discern the exact import of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. The orders as aforesaid are specific and forthright. The respondent authorities have been specifically directed to proceed with the proposed annual valuation and to consider the objection of the petitioner afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below: Recording such submission, the impugned order and/or notice as to final assessment are quashed. The respondent authorities will however proceed with the proposed annual valuation and consider the objections of the petitioner afresh by giving a chance of hearing and by taking fresh decision in accordance with law. Arguments adduced by the representatives of the East India Hotels Ltd. (Oberoi Grand) to the effect that once the orders/notice as to final assessment are quashed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta the proposed annual valuation no longer remains in force, are not considered by me as substantive and tenable. If it is taken for granted that there exists no proposed annual valuation to be relied upon the C.M.C. faces a peculiar situation whereby specific direction of the Hon'ble Court passed upon it cannot be complied with. The Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in its orders dated 19.11.92 has not directed the respondent authorities, in the present case, C.M.C. to formulate a fresh proposal or annual valuation. Contrarily it has been so stipulated by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in clear cut terms that the respondent authorities will proceed with the proposed annual valuation, consider the determine the objection of the petitioner after giving a chance of hearing. I have taken into reckoning the arguments and counter arguments adduced by the Oberoi Grand and the C.R.C. respectively and observed as follows: Valuation as was finally assessed by the C.M.C. stands inoperative after the said orders/notice of final assessments is quashed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. But the proposed annual valuation from which the final assessment flowed remains very much in force and hence operative and actionable."

(3.)Annual value of premises No. 15A, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, effective from 4th quarter of 1978-79, was fixed by the Corporation (after determination of appellants' objection at Rs. 9,74,160/-). On intermediate revaluation, effective from 3rd quarter of 1984-85, it was determined to be Rs. 3,58,38,942/- With effect from 2nd quarter of 1985-86, it was again determined on general revaluation. On yet another intermediate revaluation, effective from 2nd quarter of 1986-87, it was determined to be Rs. 3,62,45,020/-. The appellants were given opportunities to file objections to such determined annual valuations. After determining the objections filed by the appellants, the Municipal Commissioner by three orders, all dated l8th December 1986, fixed the annual value of this premises at (1) Rs. 57,25,940/-, effective from 3rd quarter of l984-85; (2) Rs. 57,25,940/-effecticve from 2nd quarter of 1985-86; and (3) Rs. 66,64,560/-, effective from 2nd quarter of 1986-87. Challenging these three orders the appellants moved a writ petition (Matter No. 147 of 1988) before this court.
;