AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the determination of annual value in respect of the premises No. 1 Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta for the period commencing 4th Quarter 1984-85. The main ground of challenge is that in determining the annual value no reasons have been disclosed by the Authorities as to how the valuation was arrived at.

( 2 ) AT the hearing Mr. Jayanta, Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is no basis for determining the annual value at Rupees 29,16,000/- and unless the reasons are disclosed as to why and how the quantum has been arrived at, the petitioner is not in a position to challenge such determination before the Appellate Authority.

( 3 ) IT has been contended by Mr. A. K. Dasadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the Calcutta Municipal Corporation that the Corporation is at liberty to adopt any of the two methods for valuation. In this particular case, the rental method was adopted and according to the particulars furnished the rent including service charge annually came to Rs. 2,70,000. 00 and on that basis the calculation was made and the annual valuation was determined. This has been seriously disputed by Mr. Mitra that no such submission was made before the Municipal Authorities because the rent which was being realised is not rs. 2,70,000/- and all the particulars regarding the rent and the service charge have been furnished and earlier the Corporation proceeded to make the assessment on that basis.

( 4 ) IT is now well settled that when an order passed by an appropriate authority ensues civil consequences it is absolutely essential that the reasons shall be disclosed, particularly when the order is an appellate order. If one has to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, which I have already set out above, it will not be possible to decipher any reason as to why and how the valuation was adopted in the manner as stated in the said impugned order. Even if there be a dispute as to whether service charges should be included in the computation of annual value or not if such a contention is raised it is necessary for the respondents to decide that question about the inclusion of service charges in the computation of the annual value.

( 5 ) MY attention has been drawn to a decision of House of Lords in the case of Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, reported in 1968 AC 997 where Lord Pearce at pages 1052 and 1053 quoted the following observations of Lord Cairns L. C. , Lord Penzance and Lord Selborne from the decision in the case of Julius v. Bishon of Oxford reported in 5 App Cas 214:"lord Cairns L. C. ". . . the cases to which I have referred appear to decide nothing more than this: that where a power is deposited with a public officer for the purpose of being used for the benefit of persons who are specifically pointed out, and with regard to whom a definition is supplied by the legislature of the conditions upon which they are entitled to call for its exercise, that power ought to be exercised, and the Court will require it to be exercised. ""lord Penance : "the words 'it shall be lawful' are distinctly words of permission only they are enabling and empowering words. They confer a legislative right and power on the individual named to do a particular thing, and the true question is not whether they mean something different, but whether, regard being had to the person so enabled - to the subject-matter, to the general objects of the statute, and to the person or class of persons for whose benefit the power may be intended to have been conferred - they do, or do not, create a duty in the person on whom it is conferred, to exercise it. ""lord Selborne; the question whether a Judge, or a public officer, to whom a power is given by such words, is bound to use it upon any particular occasion, or in any particular manner, must be solved aliunde, and, in ge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document