Vinod Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. The notice dated 11.12.87 was issued by the Assessor to the C.M.C. in terms of Section 192(1) of the C.M.C. Act, 1980, which is the basis of controversy in the present litigation. The appellants' contention is that this notice was without jurisdiction and that in deciding the matter principles of natural justice were grossly violated. It is the definite case of the parties that on 29.12.87, pursuant to the aforesaid impugned notice a final order was passed up terms of Section 192 of the Act whereby the Assessment Book, as maintained under Section 198 of the Act was amended by the respondents. It is against the aforesaid impugned notice dated 11.12.87 and the aforesaid impugned final order dated 29.12.87 that the appellants filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the learned Single Judge. The writ application was entertained in the year 1988 and interim order was granted by the learned Single Judge in favour of the writ petitioners/appellants. By the judgment dated 13.4.99 the learned Single Judge however has dismissed the writ application with regard to the aforesaid impugned notice and the aforesaid impugned order only on the ground that there was an alternative remedy available to the appellant for filing an appeal and without taking recourse to that remedy the appellants filed the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) After hearing the detailed submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties we do tend to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that the appellants ought to have availed of the alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned final order dated 29.12.87. Whether the impugned notice dated 11.12.87 suffered from the vice of lack of jurisdiction or not, was a question which had to be gone into in the appeal which the appellants should have preferred against the final order dated 29.12.87.
(3.) We are saying so because under Section 192 of the C.M.C. Act the order passed finally amending the Municipal Assessment Book in terms of Section 192(1) of the Act is appealable. We get this from Clause II of Section 192(2) of the Act. Clause II of Section 192(2) reads as follows:- "(ii) Any person on whom a notice of amendment is served under this sub-section may file an objection in writing to the Municipal Commissioner at least three days before the date fixed in the notice and the provisions of Sections 186 to 190 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to such objection." Sub-section (5) of Section 189 reads as follows:- "(5) Any owner or person liable to payment of consolidated rate may, if dissatisfied with the determination of objection under section 188 appeal to the Tribunal : Provided that such appeal shall be presented to the Tribunal within forty-five days from the date of service of a copy of the order under Section 188 and shall be accompanied by a copy of the said order.";