Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sajan Kumar Bhagat vs Howrah Municipal Corporation And ... on 12 January, 2017
1
12.01.2017.
Item No. ML-51
W.P. 26057(W) of 2016
Sajan Kumar Bhagat
Vs.
Howrah Municipal Corporation and others.
Mr. Arindam Banerjee,
Mr. Ashis Mukherjee,
Ms. Surabhi Banerjee,
Ms. Tanuka Basu.
... for the petitioner.
The point raised in this writ petition is whether an
efficacious alternative remedy by way of review under Section 93 of
the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 can stand in the way
of entertaining the writ petition by this Court.
In other words, if the other remedy is circumscribed and/or
fettered and/or restricted, the same can be said to be an
efficacious alternative remedy inviting the High Court in refusing
to exercise the power enshrined under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
The attention of this Court is drawn to an order dated 29th
September 2016 passed in WP 18363(W) of 2015 in support of the
contention that the identical point was raised therein and the
Court directed to hear the said writ petition upon exchange of
affidavits.
It is alleged that the Corporation has arbitrarily increased
the annual valuation without affording an opportunity of hearing
to an astronomical amount, which cannot be corroborated from
the materials available before it. The amount of tax as determined
2
by the Corporation is around Rs. 40,000/- and odd, if the interest
in penalty is not taken into account.
This Court, therefore, feels that the petitioner is entitled to
an interim order.
The respondents are restrained from taking any steps or
further steps on the basis of the annual valuation so determined, which is the subject matter of the instant petition, till the disposal of the writ petition provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the Corporation within two weeks from date.
The Corporation shall keep the said amount in a separate account and such deposit shall abide by the result of the instant writ petition.
In default of such deposit, the protection given to the petitioner shall automatically cease and the Corporation shall be free to proceed in accordance with law.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within three weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, be filed within a week thereafter and the matter shall appear after four weeks in the supplementary list under the heading "Motion".
ab (Harish Tandon, J.)