The Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 mandates the Corporation to provide a copy of the order passed by the Hearing Officer to the objector, and until such communication is made, the Corporation cannot raise a supplementary bill.

( 1 ) THE Court : Since both these appeals involve identical question of law these are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) IN terms of section 188 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to the said Act of 1980) objections with regard to enhancement of valuation is to be disposed of by the Hearing Officer in the manner prescribed in the said section. Section 189 provides for appeal to be preferred against the decision of the Hearing Officer within 45 days from the date of service of a copy of the order passed by the Hearing Officer under section 188. Under Rule 9 of the Taxation Rules framed under the said Act of 1980 the order was to be communicated to the objector in Form h. Form H prescribes communicatibn of the said order in the said format. The words "copy of order" are also stipulated in Form H. However, the communication under Rule 9 (2) which is commonly known as red card only specifies the enhanced or reduced valuation which is communicated to the objector and the objector, if aggrieved by such valuation, is to file an appeal before the Tribunal within 45 days from the date of receipt of the red card. In both these matters the writ petitioners challenged the relevant provisions of the rules by contending that since the Act mandated service of a copy of the order unless copy of the order was served upon the objector was precluded from availing his right under the statute to prefer an appeal from the said order and, as such, the Corporation was precluded from raising any supplementary bill on the basis of such order of the Hearing Officer.

( 3 ) THE issue was gone into by two learned Judges of this Court.

( 4 ) IN the first case being WP No. 2049 of 1999 (Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd. and Anr.) (2002 Volume 3 Calcutta High Notes 448) the learned Single judge observed that since the Statute mandated service of copy of the order it was incumbent upon the Corporation to supply copy of the order to the objector. His Lordship, however, observed that the relevant rules framed under the said Act of 1980 did stipulabe a column to enter the objection in the records of the Municipal Corporation. It was the legislative intent that the Hearing Officer must record his order determining the objection in a register to be maintained therefor. It was also observed by His Lordship that the legislative mandate was also to supply a copy of the order of the hearing Officer to the objector. Hence, the communication of the enhanced or reduced valuation without supplying a copy of the order was contrary to the legislative mandate. His Lordship directed the delegated legislature to forthwith but not later than three months from the date of service of the copy of the order to suitably amend Rule 9 of the Taxation Rules, 1987 in the light of the legislative mandate contained in section 188 of the said Act of 1980. His Lordship further observed that so long the said amendment was not done the Corporation would continue to supply copy of the order to the objectors along with communication made through the red card in form H.

( 5 ) IN the second case being WP No. 4809w of 2002 (Narendra Dev Narayan vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.) (2002 Volume 3 Calcutta High court Notes 65) another learned Single Judge decided the identical question and came to a conclusion that the objector was entitled to a copy of the order and in terms of provisions of section 188 (3) read with Rule 9 (2) of the taxation Rules. His Lordship further observed that unless and until the copy of the order was served upon the objector, the Corporation was not entitled to raise supplementary bill as the right to prefer appeal by the objector would accrue only when a copy of the order was served upon the objector as contemplated under section 188 (3) of the said Act of 1980. His lordship quashed the supplementary bills as well as the communication to the said writ petitioner and directed the Corporation to supply true copy of the order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document