Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
(2.) Challenging the judgment and order dated 14th January, 2008 passed by the Learned Trial Judge in W.P. No. 299 of 2006, this appeal has been preferred by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. By the impugned judgment under appeal, the Learned Trial Judge allowed the writ application and thereby on quashing the impugned rate cards and consolidated rate bills (fresh and supplementary) for the quarters in question as noted thereto directed de oring of the matter to determine the valuation afresh on hearing the writ petitioner, who as per findings of the Learned Trial Judge being the recorded owner got no opportunity of hearing to oppose the annual valuation proposed, as no notice was served upon him.
(3.) An opposition was filed with reference to the writ application by the Appellant-Corporation contending, er aliaat the writ petitioner was never the recorded owner/occupier/lessee/sub-lessee of the premises in question and as such he had no legal right to claim right of hearing with reference to the annual valuation as was done in terms of Section 184 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. It was further contended that the notice was duly served to the recorded owner under certificate of posting in terms of the statutory provision of Sub-section 4 of Section 184 whereby and whereunder statute provides scope to issue notice of annual valuation under certificate of posting by declaring such mode of service by certificate of posting statutorily legal and valid.;