JUDGMENT
Susanta Chatterji, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for writ of Mandamus challenging the order dated February 20, 1981 and 31st of March, 1981 passed by the Learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court in Municipal Appeal No. 186 and 187 of 1979 being Annexure “E” and “F” to the petition and to forebear the respondents from giving effect or further effect to the Provision of Section 183 (3A) of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 and of the Section 189(6) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 in the appeals filed by the petitioner being the Appeal No. 186 and 187 of 1979 and another from giving effect or further effect to the aforesaid orders dated 28th February, 1981 and 31st March, 1981. It is stated in detail that Section 183(3A) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and the restriction imposed on the right to appeal under Sub-section 3 (A) of Section 183 of the Act is so onerous as to make the right of the appeal illusory and the pro vision of Section 183(3A) of the said Act is in clear conflict of Sections 207 and 235 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1951. It is alleged that the appeal preferred against the municipal assessment has since been dismissed. Since the assessed amount has not deposited, the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court by two orders dated February 28th, 1981 directed the petitioners to comply with the provisions of Section 183(3A) within 31st March, 1981. Since the Orders were not complied with appeals were found to be not maintainable.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the said decision. It is argued with force before this Court, that the said porvisions as indicated above are not attracted inasmuch as the petitioner have no liability to deposit the assessed amount and unless there is a lease the deposit can be made at any time in view of an unreported judgment of the Division Bench in Matter No. 1312 of 1981 along with the others viz. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta and Ors. Mr. P. Chakravarty, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that in view of the decision, the direction of the learned Chief Judge was not lawful and this Court may interfere with the impugned orders and give necessary reliefs.
3. With great anxiety this Court has considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the writ petitioner. Mr. Chatterjee has fairly conceded that he does not argue any case as to the question of vires of the provisions of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act as stated in the writ petition. Without challenging the vires of the said provisions he submits that there is no scope to direct the petitioner to deposit the amount and appeals ought to have been heard on merit. Looking at the matter in depth this Court is of the view that the annual valuation of the premises is made every five years by the quinquennial assessment. The subsequent annual valuation has been made and there are appeals and/or objection thereafter for the different periods. The appeals are of the year 1979, and the learned Chief Judge only directed the petitioner to comply with the statutory provision. If the statutory provisions demands certain compliance of necessary formalities the petitioner can not challenge the said orders nor he can come to the Writ Court to seek reliefs in the manner as canvassed. The writ Court can not shut its eyes as various subsequent events have taken place as at different stages, annual valuation has been fixed and subsequent assessment has been made. It would be only academic to discuss as to whether the petitioner has the obligation to pay the required amount to sustain the appeal or not. Practically new and fresh annual valuation has been made. Considering all the aspects this Court finds that the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court did not act irregularly or illegally and further the petitioner can not ask for any relief in the Writ Court as the subsequent assessment has been made and the impugned annual valuation has since been merged with subsequent valuation, and the petitioner can not ask reliefs in the manner as sought for after such a long period. For the foregoing reasons the writ petition fails. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
4. All parties concerned arc to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative portion of the Judgment on the usual undertaking.