AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Protik Prakash Banerjee, J
The Court : Mr. Gupta concludes his submission today relying upon (1996) 11 SCC 175 inter alia paragraph 6. This is in aid of the submission that where a sister statute already exists with a detailed procedure, the same does not have to be incorporated by reference in an allied legislation. I have expressed my opinion that on facts and the particular laws involved they do not appear to be in pari materia and this is not a case where one field is occupied completely by one statute. However, I agree with Mr. Gupta that his client has made out a strong case of the Corporation having adopted the best practice of a person with ordinary prudence and has employed a reasonable basis on which to make the assessment of annual valuation of a vacant land. This of course is subject to hearing Mr. Mitra in reply. The last point Mr. Gupta has taken is in respect of the second last paragraph of page 109 being part of the impugned order which is set out hereunder:
"After hearing, it is found that the then Municipal Commissioner, KMC had rightly determined and fixed the Annual Valuation (AV) of the demised land, under consideration, in view of Section 174 of the KMC Act, 1980 read with section 2(16B) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by W. B. Act No.17 of 1990."
Mr. Gupta submits that on the face of the said order it cannot date back to the order of the Municipal Commissioner which ceased to exist and which was dated August 23, 2011 but must refer to the order dated January 28, 2014 passed by the Hearing Officer where the annual valuation was assessed for the first time with effect from the 2nd quarter, 2009-2010. He submits that if I am with him on the basis for the annual valuation then I may be pleased to hold that resurrection of a dead order was not within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner when the death happened under an order of Court which has achieved finality; however, he submits that the rest of the order ought not to be interfered with.
I have heard his submission and reserve my ruling on this point.
Mr. Gupta thereafter relies by way of abundant caution on the judgment reported in (2017) 16 SCC 719 paragraph 26 and (2004) 4 SCC 714 paragraph 28, for his proposition that the power to judicially review an administrative order is necessarily limited and the limits were set out in the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, both of which are strong Benches of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court. He submits that if tested on this touchstone then it will be found that this is not an order which ought to be judicially reviewed since at best it is an error and not any jurisdictional flaw of the nature as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He concludes his submission on the said note.
On the prayer of Mr. Mitra, the hearing of the matter as far as reply is concerned is adjourned till first Original Side day after the Court reopens after the long vacation.