Calcutta High Court
Tanveer Ebadullah vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 10 November, 2025
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
OD 5 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/155/2025
IA NO:GA/1/2025
TANVEER EBADULLAH
VS.
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Date : 10th November, 2025
Appearance :
Mr. Raghhunath Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Supratick Shyamal, Adv.
Ms. Manisha Nath, Adv.
Ms. Sonali Sengupta, Adv.
...for appellant
Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Anupam Das Adhikary, Adv.
...for the KMC
1.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20 th May,
2025, passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WP No. 1227 of 2024
(Tanveer Ebadullah vs. The KMC & Ors.).
2. The grievance of the appellant before the Writ Court was that the Hearing
Officer under Section 188 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act,
1980 while reopening and assessing the appellant in respect of premises
No.7/1, Topsia Road, Kolkata for unpaid dues of Municipal tax, has
failed to consider the scope of Section 573 of the said Act.
3. The proviso to Section 573 of the Act of 1980 mandates that no
proceeding for recovery of any sum due to the Corporation on account of
charge, cost, expense, fee, rate or rent can be effected after a lapse of
three years from the date on which the sum became due.
4. The Single Bench refused to entertain the question in the writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 primarily on the ground that a limitation of
three years prescribed under Section 573 is a mixed question of fact and
law and cannot be gone into by a writ court. According to the Single
Bench, the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, which has powers akin to a
civil court can examine, if necessary, by trial on evidence, as to when
exactly the sum became due to the Municipal Corporation.
5. This Court cannot find fault with such view. Indeed, disputed question of
fact cannot be decided by a writ court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
6. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation, has labored to place various facts recorded by the Single
Bench and admitted by the appellant in the writ petition. Firstly, that
under the various assessment numbers relating to the said premises,
several ad-hoc payments were made all the way until November, 2024.
The appellant further undertook on 20th November, 2024 to clear all
outstanding amounts by December, 2024. He, therefore, submits that
the appellant may have waived any objection that he may have had to
the lawful demands of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. He, therefore,
submits that the writ petition, even otherwise was not maintainable for
the principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppels.
7. As already stated hereinabove as to when the Municipal Corporation
came to know of the outstanding dues of the appellant, is required to be
ascertained after a proper trial on evidence.
8. The averments in the writ petition admitting dues can themselves be
proved from evidence before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal.
9. Prima facie, it appears to this Court that the Municipality may have come
to know of the outstanding dues payable by the appellant sometime, in
October-November, 2024. Applying the dicta of a co-ordinate Bench laid
down particularly under paragraph 30 onwards, of the decision in the
case of Sudip Kusarye & Anr. Vs. KMC, being Judgment dated
22.5.2024, rendered in APO 7 of 2023.
10. These are, however, only prima facie views. The appellant would be better
placed to move the Municipal Assessment Tribunal in terms of the liberty
granted by the Single Bench.
11. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that
his client is not even being furnished with a copy of the order passed by
the Hearing Officer. He further submits that no notice was given by the
Hearing Officer before commencement of the proceedings under Section
184.
12. These are equally disputed questions of fact which the Corporation may
place before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal. However, it is made
clear that if the appellant has, in fact, not been supplied with a copy of
the order of the Hearing Officer, he shall be so supplied within a period of
seven days.
13. Let a copy of the order of the Hearing Officer be made available to the
appellant without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Kolkata
Municipal Commissioner before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal.
14. It is made clear that all points are kept open for the Municipal
Assessment Tribunal to decide independently and uninfluenced by any
observation made herein or by the Learned Single Bench.
15. In so far as the requirement of pre-deposit is concerned, Mr. Chakraborty
submits that his client has put in Rs.30 Lacs towards the demand found
justified by the Hearing Officer. The same may be set off against any
other statutory pre-deposit required to be made by the appellant.
16. With the aforesaid observation, APOT/155/2025 shall stand disposed of.
17. Needless to mention, in the event the Tribunal finds favour with the
appellant, it may refund any sum so found refundable in accordance
with law.
18. Subject to fulfilment of all formalities, time to file appeal is extended by a
period of two weeks.
(RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.)
(AJAY KUMAR GUPTA , J.)
SN/NM.
AR(C R)
