J. K. BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition (No. 2991 of 1993) filed by the appellants was dismissed by the learned single Judge by judgment dated 16th June 1999. The present appeal is against this judgment. ( 2 ) THE writ petition was filed challenging an order dated 22nd June 1993. It was passed by the Hearing Officer-XI appointed under section 187 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Such order was passed in course of hearing of the assessment case in respect of premises Nos. 15a Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta and 8a Chowringhee Place, Calcutta. The dispute is regarding revision of annual valuation of these two premises by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The order of the Hearing Officer reads as follows: order"minutes of discussion and orders dated 14. 6. 93 may pertinently be recalled with reference to the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta on 19. 11. 92. I have consulted the aforesaid orders and applied my mind to discern the exact import of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. The orders as aforesaid are specific and forthright. The respondent authorities have been specifically directed to proceed with the proposed annual valuation and to consider the objection of the petitioner afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below: recording such submission, the impugned order and/or notice as to final assessment are quashed. The respondent authorities will however proceed with the proposed annual valuation and consider the objections of the petitioner afresh by giving a chance of hearing and by taking fresh decision in accordance with law. Arguments adduced by the representatives of the East India Hotels Ltd. (Oberoi Grand) to the effect that once the orders/notice as to final assessment are quashed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta the proposed annual valuation no longer remains in force, are not considered by me as substantive and tenable. If it is taken for granted that there exists no proposed annual valuation to be relied upon the C. M. C. faces a peculiar situation whereby specific direction of the Hon'ble Court passed upon it cannot be complied with. The Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in its orders dated 19. 11. 92 has not directed the respondent authorities, in the present case, C. M. C. to formulate a fresh proposal or annual valuation. The Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in its orders dated 19. 11. 92 has not directed the respondent authorities, in the present case, C. M. C. to formulate a fresh proposal or annual valuation. Contrarily it has been so stipulated by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in clear cut terms that the respondent authorities will proceed with the proposed annual valuation, consider the determine the objection of the petitioner after giving a chance of hearing. I have taken into reckoning the arguments and counter arguments adduced by the Oberoi Grand and the C. R. C. respectively and observed as follows: valuation as was finally assessed by the C. M. C. stands inoperative after the said orders/notice of final assessments is quashed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. But the proposed annual valuation from which the final assessment flowed remains very much in force and hence operative and actionable. " ( 3 ) ANNUAL value of premises No. 15a, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, effective from 4th quarter of 1978-79, was fixed by the Corporation (after determination of appellants' objection at Rs. 9,74,160/- ). On intermediate revaluation, effective from 3rd quarter of 1984-85, it was determined to be Rs. 3,58,38,942/- With effect from 2nd quarter of 1985-86, it was again determined on general revaluation. On yet another intermediate revaluation, effective from 2nd quarter of 1986-87, it was determined to be Rs. 3,62,45,020/ -. The appellants were given opportunities to file objections to such determined annual valuations. After determining the objections filed by the appellants, the Municipal Commissioner by three orders, all dated l8th December 1986, fixed the annual value of this premises at (1) Rs. 57,25,940/-, effective from 3rd quarter of l984-85; (2) Rs. 57,25,940/-effecticve from 2nd quarter of 1985-86; and (3) Rs. 66,64,560/-, effective from 2nd quarter of 1986-87. Challenging these three orders the appellants moved a writ petition (Matter No. 147 of 1988) before this court. ( 4 ) ON general revaluation, effective from 4th quarter of 1972-73 the annual value of premises No. 8a Chowringhee Place was determined by the Corporation to be Rs. 64,800/ -. On yet another general revaluation, effective from 3rd quarter of 1979-80, it was determined to be Rs. 2,63,860/ -. Against these two determined annual valuations the appellants filed their objections. 64,800/ -. On yet another general revaluation, effective from 3rd quarter of 1979-80, it was determined to be Rs. 2,63,860/ -. Against these two determined annual valuations the appellants filed their objections. By orders also date 8th December 1986, the Municipal Commissioner, after determining the appellants' objections, fixed the valuation of this premises (1) at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month, effective from 4th quarter of 1972-73; and (2) at the rate of Rs. 4. 50 per square feet, per month, effective from 3rd quarter of 1979-80. Challenging such fixation the appellants moved another writ petition (Matter No. 6515 of 1988) before this Court. ( 5 ) BOTH the writ petitions filed in the year 1988 were heard together, and disposed of by a learned Judge by common order dated 19th November 1992. This order is reproduced below:"having heard Mr. Sadhan Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Roy, learned counsel for the C. M. C. authorities, it appears that the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order for enhancement of annual valuation has filed this writ petition seeking relief as indicated thereto. Mr. Roy in his usual fairness has submitted that in the fitness of things and to comply with the principles of natural justice the Corporation authorities would consider the objection raised by the petitioner against the proposed enhancement of the annual valuation by giving a chance of hearing and take a decision strictly in accordance with law. Recording such submission the impugned order and/or notice as to final assessment are quashed. The respondent authorities will however proceed with the proposed annual valuation and consider the objections of the petitioner afresh by giving a chance of hearing and by taking fresh decision in accordance with law. Mr. Gupta has submitted that the petitioner will clear all the arrear dues up-to-date at the old prevailing rate without prejudice and subject to the decision as indicate above. The C. M. C. authorities will intimate the petitioner within 2 weeks as to the arrear dues at the old rate and the petitioner will make payment thereof within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of such intimation. The petition is thus disposed of. No order as to costs. All parties to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order in the usual undertaking. The petition is thus disposed of. No order as to costs. All parties to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order in the usual undertaking. " ( 6 ) AFTER final disposal of the two writ petitions, the hearing officer of the Corporation fixed dates for re-hearing of the objections submitted by the appellants. Before the Hearing Officer the appellants contended that as the order and notice regarding final assessment was quashed by this Court, the Corporation was required to re-determine the proposed annual valuation after hearing the appellants, and so long as this was not done, the Hearing Officer could not proceed to determine the objections for fixing the annual valuations. After hearing the appellants the Hearing officer passed the order dated 22nd June 1993. He held that there was no requirement of fresh determination of the proposed annual valuations, and the appellants' objections were to be determined on the basis of the previously determined proposed valuations as mentioned in the concerned notices issued by the Corporation. As stated before, the writ petition, out of which this appeal arrives, was filed challenging this order of the Hearing officer. ( 7 ) THE main contention in the writ petition is that in view of the order dated 19th November 1992 passed in the appellants' two previous writ petitions, the Hearing Officer could not proceed at all in the absence of fresh determination of annual valuation by the Corporation after hearing the appellants. The writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing affidavit-in-opposition, which was replied to by the appellants. The appellants, in addition to the writ petition and reply, filed supplementary affidavit and petition before the learned single Judge. ( 8 ) BY this impugned judgment dated 16th June 1999 the learned single Judge held that the Hearing Officer by his order dated 22nd June 1993 rightly held that the order dated 19th November 1992 passed by this Court did not cast an obligation on the Corporation to re-determine the proposed annual valuations after hearing the appellants. The learned single Judge further held that if dissatisfied with the determination of their objections by the Hearing Office, the appellants could avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned single Judge further held that if dissatisfied with the determination of their objections by the Hearing Office, the appellants could avail the statutory remedy of appeal. ( 9 ) BEFORE us, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in view of the order dated 19th November 1992 passed by this Court in the appellants' two previous writ petitions, it was not open to the Hearing Officer of the Corporation to proceed with the proposed annual valuations on the basis whereof the Municipal Commissioner had previously, by his order dated 8th December 1986, fixed the valuations after determining the appellants' objections. He has drawn our attention to the notices issued by the Corporation and the orders passed by its authorities from time to time. His contention is that the formerly determined proposed valuations were quashed by this Court by the order dated 19th November 1992. The learned counsel for the Corporation has contended that the Hearing Officer rightly held that by order dated 19th November 1992 this Court did not set aside and/or quash the proposed annual valuations on the basis whereof the objections filed by the appellants had been previously heard and determined, and orders were passed by the Municipal Commissioner on 8th December 1986 for fixing the valuations. ( 10 ) AFTER hearing the parties and considering the materials on record we are of the view that the learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. The chief contention of the appellants is that because of the order dated 19th November 1992 the corporation was required to re-determine the proposed annual valuation after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellants, and only thereafter the Hearing Office could proceed to determine the objections to be filed by the appellant. From the order dated 19th November 1992 passed by this Court it is clear that the Corporation was directed to proceed with the already determined proposed annual valuations for determining the objections filed by the appellants. This being the factual position we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 22nd June 1993 passed by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing officer rightly held that the hearing of the objections filed by the appellants was not required to be preceded by fresh determination of proposed annual valuations by the Corporation after hearing the appellants. This being the factual position we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 22nd June 1993 passed by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing officer rightly held that the hearing of the objections filed by the appellants was not required to be preceded by fresh determination of proposed annual valuations by the Corporation after hearing the appellants. Even otherwise, considering the scheme of things provided by the relevant provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, we are of the view that before determination of annual valuation by the Corporation, either by way of intermediate revaluation or general revaluation, the owner or person liable to pay the consolidated rate is not entitled to file objection or get hearing. The ex-parte determination is known as the proposed annual value. The owner or person liable to pay the consolidated rate has a statutory right, under section 186, to file objection with a view to disputing such determined annual value. The Hearing Officer is the statutory authority to hear and determine such objection. The valuation is finally fixed only after determination of such objection. Under section 189 an appeal lies against the order of the authority determining the objection. Hence we respectfully agree with the learned single Judge that there is no merit in the writ petition. For the forgoing reasons we find no merit in the present appeal, and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. A. K. Mathur, CJ.-I agree. Appeal dismissed.