(1.) i have heard Smt. Bhuvana, counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K. Nagaveni, holding brief for Sri Ashok Haranahalli, counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) the petitioner i.e., the Karnataka state construction corporation has filed this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of india, for the quashing of the notice issued by the respondents on 3-1-1992 bearing No. Das, pr 52/91-92, a copy of which is Annexure 'a' to the writ petition as well as dated 22-5-1992 bearing No. Da8. Pr. 16/92-93, a copy of which is Annexure 'c' to the writ petition. The notice dated 3-1-1992 i.e., Annexure 'a' has been issued under Section 143 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 read with rules 8 and 9 thereof. By this notice, it has been indicated that assessment has been made of the tax as mentioned at page 2 of Annexure 'a' and total amount under that notice has been indicated as Rs. 9,51,060/-. In this notice, it has been mentioned that objections to the assessment referred to in this notice may be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the special notice. So, by this notice, the petitioner has only been required to submit its objections against the assessment made by the Bangalore city corporation. It appears from the record that vide Annexure 'b', objections have been filed in pursuance of this notice dated 3rd january, 1992. Thereafter, it appears that, on 22nd of may, 1992, a notice has been issued by the Bangalore mahanagara palike i.e., Bangalore city corporation to the chairman of the petitioner-corporation serving the bills and requiring the petitioner to arrange for payments of the property tax relating to the year 1991-92 and 1992-93 amounting to Rs. 11,88,826/- to avoid penalty from the current year 1992-93.
(3.) it may be mentioned here that, according to the all egations made in para 5 of the writ petition, it has been very clearly stated that respondent No. 1 has not passed any Order, so far, on the objections filed by the petitioner vide Annexure 'b' to the writ petition nor sent any reply. Instead, respondent No. 2 issued the notice dated 22-5-1992.