IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSIITUTIONAL WRIT JURSDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE RESERVED ON: 15.12.2025 DELIVERED ON: 24.03.2026 PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH WPO 1220 of 2024 SAHUJAIN CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND ANR.

VERSUS THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Appearance: -

Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv.

Mr. Samit Rudra. Adv.

Mr. Kausheyo Ray, Adv.

Mr. P. K. Jhunjhunwala, Adv.

Ms. Sruti Datta, Adv.

Ms. Sakshi Singhi, Adv.

.…………………….. for the Petitioners Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Swapan Kr. Debnath. Adv.

……. For the KMC Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. A.G.

Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Vivekananda Bose, Adv. Ms. Anjusri Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Susmita Biswas Chowdhury, Adv.

….…….… for the State JUDGMENT Gaurang Kanth, J. :-

1. The Petitioner has instituted the present writ petition seeking a declaration that Section 3 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2022, by which Section 179(2)(d) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 has been substituted, is unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India. The Petitioner has further sought quashing of the letter dated 23.07.2024 issued by the Respondent Corporation, whereby a demand of Rs. 11,24,27,669/-, along with a penalty of Rs. 39,40,847.22/-, has been raised towards alleged arrears of property tax in respect of various parts and portions of the basement, the 11th floor, part of the 12th floor, and the 13th to 16th floors of Premises No. 8, Camac Street (now Abanindranath Thakur Sarani), Kolkata.

2. The facts leading to the present case are as follows:

3. The Petitioner No. 1 is a Charitable Society established in 1981 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Petitioner No. 2 is a trustee of Petitioner No. 1.

4. At the relevant time, i.e., in 1984, Petitioner No. 1 was the owner of the basement, the 11th floor, part of the 12th floor, and the entirety of the 13th to 16th floors of a building situated at premises No. 8, Camac Street, now known as Abanindra Nath Thakur Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. In 1984, the annual valuation of the said property was Rs. 4,74,120/-. The Petitioner was paying the property tax as per the said rate on regular basis.

5. In February 1999, Respondent No. 3 issued three separate notices of hearing, all dated 27.02.1999, proposing upward revision of the annual valuation for three consecutive past periods of six years each, commencing from (a) 4th Quarter 1984–85 (b) 4th Quarter 1990–91, and (c) 4th Quarter

1996–97.

6. Thereafter, the Respondent authorities issued three rate cards and six bills, all dated 16.11.1999, retrospectively revising the annual valuation with effect from as far back as January 1985, i.e., nearly 15 years earlier. Pursuant to the retrospective upward revision, five bills dated 16.11.1999 were issued demanding additional property tax amounting to Rs.

1,93,34,746/-.

7. The Petitioners challenged the said bills before the Municipal Appellate Tribunal. The appeals remained defective as they were not accompanied by certain assessment orders which were never supplied to the Petitioners.

8. In 2003, the Respondents disconnected the water supply to the premises.

In order to secure restoration of the said connection, the Petitioners paid Rs. 25,00,000/- towards the outstanding property tax.

9. Pursuant to the representations made by the Petitioners, the Municipal Commissioner, by an order dated 02.06.2003, directed cancellation of the earlier bills dated 16.11.1999 and further directed issuance of fresh bills.

10. However, without issuing any notice of hearing to the Petitioners, the Respondent authorities purportedly issued fresh bills dated 24.06.2003, which contained no variation from the earlier bills.

11. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners filed W.P. No. 460 of 2004 challenging, inter alia, the second proviso to Section 179(2)(d) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. By order dated 20.04.2007, this Court disposed of the said writ petition by directing