Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties.
(2.) Challenging the judgment and order dated 12th May, 2008 passed by the learned Trial Judge in W. P. No. 585 of 2008, this appeal has been preferred.
(3.) By the impugned judgment under appeal, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the writ application. The writ petitioner/appellant challenged the revision of annual valuation from 22nd January, 2007 with effect from 3rd quarter 2000-2001 whereby the valuation was determined in respect of the premises concerned to the extent of Rs. 1,45,600/- on the ground that no notice under section 184 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was served. The learned Trial Judge disbelieved it by holding that as per averments in the writ application since the purchase of the property in the year 1990 the writ petitioner continued to pay all the taxes in response to the rate card as issued, but so far as the notice under section 184 for general revaluation was concerned, the same was not served upon him, could not be believed. The order of the learned Trial Judge reads such: "The petitioner is questioning the rate card (at page 53) that was admittedly received by him sometime in February, 2007. He is also questioning a supplementary bill dated January 31st, 2007 and the notice of demand dated November 15th, 2007. It is argued that the-hearing officer of the Corporation heard the assessment proceedings on January 22nd, 2007 without giving any notice under section 184 to the petitioner. Against the order of the hearing officer the petitioner was entitled to lodge an appeal with the Tribunal under section 199 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. He did not lodge any appeal nor did he approach this Court immediately after February, 2007 alleging that the hearing officer made the order without giving any opportunity of hearing. Mr. Das Adhikary, Counsel for the corporation has said that there is absolutely no reason to accept the case sought to be made out by the petitioner who admittedly received all notices, rate cards, bills, except, according to him, the notice under section 184 giving him opportunity to submit objection and participate in the proceedings before the hearing officer. To this, Mr. Sen, Counsel for the petitioner, has said that the petitioner made representation dated June 19th, 2007 which was never considered. On these (Acts, I find no reason to entertain the writ petition in exercise of my discretionary writ powers. Needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to lodge appeal with the Tribunal, if he is otherwise entitled to do that. If really the hearing office made the order without giving him any notice under section 184, in my opinion, he should have approached the appropriate forum or Court in February, 2007 or within a reasonable period thereafter. He chose not to do that. For these reasons, I dismiss the writ petition. It is made clear that nothing in this order shall prevent the petitioner from lodging appeal with the Tribunal, if he is otherwise entitled to do that. There shall be no order for costs. Urgent certified xerox copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for, within three days from the date of receipt of the file by section concerned.";