Judgment :- (1.) In the writ petition the petitioners have prayed for several reliefs. The relevant prayer is as under : "(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and each of them to forthwith attach rent payable and already paid by the respondent No.7 to the respondent No. 6 in respect of room No. 6, 2nd floor, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata - 700 017." (2.) It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner No.1, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is the owner of a flat and the respondent No.6 is a tenant under him in the said flat. The tenancy of the said flat is governed by the provisions contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. It has been submitted that without any previous consent in writing of the petitioner No.1, the respondent No.6 on 1.10.1996 had inducted the respondent No.7 as a sub-tenant. The respondent No.6 had received substantial amount from the respondent No.7 as rent. At present the respondent No.6 is receiving a sum of Rs.42,000/- per month from the said sub-tenant as rent for its sub-tenancy. Neither the petitioner No.1 had inducted the said subtenant nor is he enjoying any benefit from the said sub-tenancy. Until the 3rd quarter of 199697 the annual valuation of the said flat fixed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation was Rs. 5.508/-. However, in view of the sub-tenancy granted by the respondent No.6 to the said sub-tenant with effect from 4th quarter, 1996 the Corporation had increased the annual valuation of the said flat from Rs.5,508/- to Rs.40,500/- and as a result thereof instead of Rs.833/- a sum of Rs.61,256/- (inclusive of commercial surcharge of Rs.20,200/-) per quarter is payable to the Corporation. As on December 31, 2004 a sum of Rs. 30,78,040.38 paise remained due and payable to the authorities. Submission was made that it is not possible for writ petitioner No.1 to pay the said sum to the authority. It was submitted that under section 195 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (for short the Act) the authorities are duty-bound to recover the outstanding dues in respect of the said flat by attaching the rent payable by the said sub-tenant to the respondent No. 6. It was submitted that under section 195 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (for short the Act) the authorities are duty-bound to recover the outstanding dues in respect of the said flat by attaching the rent payable by the said sub-tenant to the respondent No. 6. Though the petitioner on several occasions requested the authorities to attach the rent paid and recover the said dues, the same has not been done. The said inaction on the part of the Corporation authorities, according to the petitioner, is illegal and arbitrary. It has been submitted that under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 the occupants are under an obligation to pay the Corporation taxes. (3.) Mr. Ranjan Deb, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the statements made in the writ petition submitted that it is apparent from a perusal of paragraph 6 in the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by the Corporation that valuation of the said flat had been enhanced on the basis of the rent paid by the subtenant. It was submitted that the Corporation should attach the rent payable by the subtenant to the respondent No.6 and necessary direction should be issued for attachment of the rent for payment of the dues. Reliance was placed on the judgment and order passed in G.A.No.1256 of 2004 and in W.P.No.603 of 2005, Power Tools and Appliances Company Ltd. and Anr. vs. K.M.C. and Ors., in support of his contentions. (4.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation submitted that the discretion enjoyed by the Corporation in recovering the taxes and the dues cannot be fettered by issuing a writ of mandamus. It should be left to the discretion of the authorities. Referring to the letter dated 5.10.2004 issued on behalf of the petitioner No.1 it was submitted that the petitioner did not make any attempt to recover the taxes and/or the dues from the respondent No.6 and it also did not appear that the petitioner ia not in a position to pay the dues. Moreover, the stage has not come for invoking sections 219 and 220 of the Act. In support of his submissions reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Khyerbarl Tea Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. State of Assam and Ors., reported in AIR 1964 SC 925 . (5.) Mr. Moreover, the stage has not come for invoking sections 219 and 220 of the Act. In support of his submissions reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Khyerbarl Tea Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. State of Assam and Ors., reported in AIR 1964 SC 925 . (5.) Mr. Samit Talukdar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6 submitted that the writ petition is in bad faith and thus, not maintainable. One must show that there has been an infringement of legal right. From the averments it appears that the intention of the petitioner is to settle personal score. The petitioner cannot wriggle himself out of the statutory obligation of paying the taxes. Relying on the judgments in Tukaram G.Gaokar vs. R.N.Shukla and Ors., reported in AIR 1968 SC 1050 and the judgment in Mansukhlal Vithal Das Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3400 it was submitted that discretion granted under the Act cannot be fettered by the Court. The authorities have a right to choose their course of action. (6.) Mr. Sidhartha Mitra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.7 submitted that the petitioner has not spelt out the failure of the Corporation in discharging their public duty. (7.) The issue which falls for consideration is what is the Constitutional or legal right of the petitioner which has been affected. Or what is the inaction on the part of the Corporation which one can complain of. A perusal of the letter dated 5.10.2004 reveals that there is no averment that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the dues. The petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the authorities of the Corporation to attach the rent payable and already paid by the respondent No.7 to the respondent No.6 in respect of the premises in question. In my view and as correctly contended on behalf of the Municipal authorities the petitioner cannot dictate in what mode and manner the Corporation shall recover its dues. There should not be interference. No order can be passed interfering with the discretion enjoyed by the municipal authorities. In this regard the principles of law as laid down by the Apex Court in Tuckram G, Gaokar (supra) and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra) are well-settled. There should not be interference. No order can be passed interfering with the discretion enjoyed by the municipal authorities. In this regard the principles of law as laid down by the Apex Court in Tuckram G, Gaokar (supra) and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra) are well-settled. The ratio laid down in the unreported judgment in G.A.No.1256 of 2004 and in W. P. No.603 of 2005 Power Tools and Appliances Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. K.M.C. and Ors., is not applicable since the applicability of section 225 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and the question whether the amount of rent received by the applicant could be attached towards liquidation of the taxes were the subject-matters in dispute. Moreover, in the present case, I find there is no averment in the petition that the petitioner ever demanded from the respondent No.6 to pay the municipal share of taxes. Further, though in paragraphs 5 and 8 of the petition the petitioner in an oblique manner has submitted that the respondent No.7 has been inducted illegally but surprisingly no action has been taken against the said respondent thus raising a question about the bona fides of the petitioner. In short, the petitioner has not moved the writ petition with clean hands. The conduct of the petitioner is such that he does not deserve the discretionary remedy under the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. (8.) No order as to costs. (9.) Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment and order be given to the appearing parties, if applied for, on priority basis. Writ petition dismissed.