4 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF KRNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 5tn .c.ay of June 1998 Th HON LE MR • JUSTICE CHSHEKARIH WRIT PETITION NO.10264/1997 Between: Shri Haji Abdulla Sait, Son of Hajee Mohammed Hussain aged 67 years, residing at No. 70, (Old No.10), Millers Road, Bangalore — 560 001. •..PTITIONER (By Sri,Sreevatsava ssociates, Adv.) And: 1. Corporation of the City of banalore, N,R. square, Bangalore, represented by its Commissioner. 2. The Revenue Officer, Corporation of the City of bangalore, North-East Range Queens Road, Bangalore — 1 ...RESPCND.NTS (By Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, Adv. for R—1 & 2) . . • . This Writ Ftition is filed under Article 22 of tne Constitution ot India with a prayer to quash vide Annexure ‘B dated 20.03.1997, This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘13’ roup this day, the Court made the folloting: — .2 —2— ORDER The Corporation issued a special notice calling for objection to the proposed revision of tax to the pLtitioner under Section 147 of the Karnataka Municipal CorporationcRct. The said notice was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.26323/1993. This Court by its order dated 19.02.1997 permitted the petitioner to file objection to the said notice within four weeks from the date of the receipt of that order. This order was received by the petitioner on 29,03,1997 as seen from the xerox copy of the certified copy of the order produced as Annexure ‘A’ • The Corporation by its order dated 20.03,1997 assessed the tax holding that the petitioner has not flied the objection witflin the time grantby tis Court, The petitioner has challenged this order in this Writ Petition. a . .3 —3— 2. The Corporation assessed the tax on the ground that the petitioner has not filed objections within four weeks from the date of the order, whereas this Court in the Writ Peti tion referred to above permitted the petitioner to file objections within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. Therefore, the Corporation was not right in. taking the date of the order to calculate the period of four weeks. Admittedly, the petitioner received the Certified copy of the order on 29.03.1997. As per the order referred to above, the petitioner had four weeks time to file objection from 29.03.1997. The Cor poration even before the expiry of the said period has assessed the tax taking the date of the order for the purpose of calculating four weeks which in my opinion is not correct, 3. In the result, I pass the following order: The Writ Petition is allowed, The order dated 20.03.1997 . . —4- assessing the tax in respect of the petitioner’s prperty as per Annexure ‘B’ is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to file statement of objections if any within two months from to—day. If the petitioner files objections within the period specified above, the Corporation may proceed to finalise the tax, considering the said objections. In the event, if the petitioner fails to file objec tions within the period of two months, the order Annexure ‘B’ stands. Sd/ JUDGE sps/*