SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) For obvious reasons, these recalcitrant opposite parties do not want the merits of the matter to be reopened since the inference that can be drawn from the order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal is obvious.
(2.) The order passed by the tribunal on February 16, 2015 is an insult to the process of adjudication. Certain facts were referred to and without indicating any basis as to how the adjudication was undertaken or the rates asserted by the Corporation were erroneous, the tribunal went on to observe, without the slightest of material indicating any reasons, as follows: "Having regard to the submission of both sides in the light of documents and referred cases of the parties, we are of the considered view that the RR of the premises-in-question should be 1.10 per sq.ft per month"
(3.) The Corporation has challenged the order by carrying a petition in August, 2017, nearly 30 months from the date of the order. Some explanations have been furnished at paragraphs 20 and 21 of the petition. These explanations are not different from the standard excuses used by government departments in petitions under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. There is only one difference in this matter. There is no period prescribed for limitation under Article 227 of the Constitution and it is for the court to accept whether a litigant has come within reasonable time or not to complain of the propriety of an order.;