Jayanita Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioners in this art.226 petition have questioned an undated notice, Annexure P4 at p.48, and the consolidated rate distress warrant dated December 23, 2008, Annexure P6 at p.50. While the notice, issued by order of the Municipal Commissioner of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, was pasted on a conspicuous place of the premises in question, the distress warrant was issued by the Chief Manager (Revenue) of the corporation asking the officer concerned of the corporation to recover the amount of property tax mentioned therein by selling the property at the premises at auction in execution of the warrant.
(2.) It appears that stating urgency advocate for the petitioners obtained leave of the court to obtain a tender number on January 5, 2009. By the order it was directed that the matter would appear on January 6, 2009. On January 6, 2009 the matter was released by the regular bench. Thereupon it was assigned to me by my Lord the Chief Justice. On January 30, 2009 the matter appeared before me and directions were given for filing affidavits. The parties exchanged affidavits and the matter came up for final hearing.
(3.) In the course of hearing on March 13, 2009 I detected that the petition was not verified by the solemn affirmation made by the petitioners or a person duly authorised for the purpose. When I pointed out the position, Mr Mukherjee, senior advocate for the petitioners, prayed for an opportunity to argue that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to verify the petition by the solemn affirmation made by the second petitioner. Under the circumstances, hearing was adjourned. The first petitioner is an existing company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and the second petitioner is a director of the first petitioner. The petition has been signed by the second petitioner as the person authorised by the first petitioner for the purpose and also for himself. Although the advocate representing the petitioners signed the petition, he has not given any certificate of his satisfaction that the second petitioner was duly authorised to sign and date the petition on behalf of the first petitioner.;