( 1 ) THE writ petitioner, a resident in a flat at Neelachal Abasan Co-operative society in Kolkata, has challenged the action of the Kolkata municipal Corporation (for short "the Corporation") in issuing notices for hearing under Sections 184 (3) and 184 (4) of the Kolkata Municipal corporation Act, 1980 ("the Act" for short) for assessment of the annual valuation for the first quarter 1998-99, second quarter 2001-02 and first quarter 2002-03 on several grounds, - that he hearing officer lacked jurisdiction to decide the dispute, written objection dated 27th October, 2003 was not considered and the order passed by the said officer on 7th november, 2003 was not valid since it was neither speaking nor reasoned. Though it has been alleged that the copy of the order was not supplied, it appears during the pendency of the petition it was communicated. ( 2 ) LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the action of the Corporation was without jurisdiction as assessment could not be in vacuum, since the notices at pages 29 and 31 of the writ petition proposing valuation could not be correlated to the grounds stated therein. Since there was not valid ground, there was no taxable event. Even assuming notices were valid, still it was not in consonance with Section 180 of the Act as the procedure for revision of annual valuation enumerated in sub-section 2 (i) to (ix) of the said section was not followed which was a prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 184 of the Act. Since in the notices for the first-quarter 1998-99 and first quarter 2002-03 the words "grounds mentioned over leaf" were struck off, there were no grounds and, thus, it was not compatible with Section 180 (2) (i) to (ix ). Therefore, the said two notices were not valid. Since notice for the second quarter 2001-02 which proposed revision on account of rise in rent was subsequent to 1998-99, that too could not be sustained. As there was no notice for revising the valuation for the fourth quarter 1998-99, the order passed by the Hearing Officer for the said period was without jurisdiction. Submission was made that the Hearing Officer instead of proceeding objectively should have proceeded in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 174 of the Act. As there was no notice for revising the valuation for the fourth quarter 1998-99, the order passed by the Hearing Officer for the said period was without jurisdiction. Submission was made that the Hearing Officer instead of proceeding objectively should have proceeded in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 174 of the Act. Therefore, as the procedure laid down under the Act such as preparation of assessment list and its publication was not adhered to, the action culminating in passing the order was not valid. Thus, there was misuse and abuse of power and, hence the action of the Hearing Officer in passing the order is hit by the doctrine of procedural ultra vires. Since the Hearing Officer is a quasi-judicial authority he should have acted within the parameters of the Act. In support of his submission reliance was placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in Ramchandra v. Govind, AIR 1975 SC 915 ; Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 334 ; M/s. Shri Sitaram Co. Ltd. v. Union of india, AIR 1990 SC 1277 ; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of india, AIR 1986 SC 872 ; R. K. Kaura v. Municipal Commr. , MCD and Ors. , (2005) 11 SCC 524 ; Lt. Col. P. R. Chaudhuary v. Municipal Corporation of delhi, (2000)4 SCC 577 ; Food Corporation of India v. State of Punjab, (2001)1 SCC 291 ; Municipal Council, Khurai and Am. v. Kamal Kumar and anr. , AIR 1965 SC 1321 . ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal corporation submitted that though the petitioner was in occupation of her flat, no return was filed which was in violation of Section 178 (5) of the Act. The petitioner also chose not to file return under Section 182a. It appeared from the letter dated 25th April, 2003 issued by the petitioner, appearing at page 24 of the affidavit-in-opposition, that for the purpose of assessment the petitioner was served with the notice for submission of return. Thereafter, assessment was made under Section 179 following the procedure laid down under the Act. Submission was made that in compliance with the provisions of the Act, notices were issued for hearing. Objections were invited and considered. Hearing was granted. Thereafter, assessment was made under Section 179 following the procedure laid down under the Act. Submission was made that in compliance with the provisions of the Act, notices were issued for hearing. Objections were invited and considered. Hearing was granted. It appears from the written objection dated 27th October, 2003 (annexure P-2 to the writ petition) filed by the petitioner that prayer was made for reduction of annual valuation and for commencement of assessment year from first quarter 1999. No procedural lapse was pointed out. Thereafter, taking note of the written objection as well as oral submission, on 7th November, 2003 order was passed by the hearing Officer fixing the annual valuation at Rs. 13,620/- effective from fourth quarter 1998-99 as a special consideration following the quarter when the society got drainage connection. Therefore, as the legal parameters were met, there is not merit in the writ petition. If aggrieved, the petitioner should have availed herself of the statutory remedy and could have preferred appeal under Section 189 of the Act before the Municipal Assessment tribunal. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Calcutta Municipal corporation and Ors. v. Kaushalya Khatri and Anr. , (2002)1 Cal HN 1 ; Subrata basu Mullick v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , (2002)1 Cal HN 181 ; C. M. C. and Ors. v. Bala Bestos India Ltd. and Ors. , (1998)1 Cal HN 492 and the judgment of the Apex Court in H. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission v. H. P. State Electricity Board, (2006)9 SCC 233 ; Municipal Corporation, delhi v. M/s. Trigon Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. , AIR 1996 SC 1579 in support of his submission. ( 4 ) IT appears that by the letter dated 25th April, 2003 (annexure R-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition) the petitioner was served with a notice under section 181 of the Act for submission of return. However, the petitioner chose not to file return on the ground that the society was yet to furnish the formal letter of possession of the flat and would get the flat assessed when she would be the legal owner and would "supply all information required in this respect". Thereafter, the Corporation by notices dated 16th October, 2003 under Sections 183 (3) and (4) of the Act called upon the petitioner to file written objection and to appear at the hearing. Thereafter, the Corporation by notices dated 16th October, 2003 under Sections 183 (3) and (4) of the Act called upon the petitioner to file written objection and to appear at the hearing. On 28th October, 2003 the petitioner filed her written objection. Though according to the petitioner, "hearing notice for assessment of KMC's property tax from the 1st qtr. of 1998" was "arbitrary and unjustified" and though "assessment of property tax from 1st Qtr. 1998" was "disputed and objected", significantly in paragraph 10 of the said objection it was stated that "assessment of Property Tax at the earliest can he made/assessed from 1st Qtr. 1999". In the ultimate paragraph of the written objection the petitioner made the following prayer : "in view of the above objection of the commencement of assessment year and points for reduction of the rate of tax, you are requested to consider the commencement of assessment year from 1st Qtr. 1999 and reduction of the annual value of flats as prayed for. " ( 5 ) INCIDENTALLY, sewer connection to the premises was effected in the month of October, 1998. ( 6 ) IT appears in accordance with Section 188 of the Act, the Hearing officer gave the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. That her submissions were considered, is evident from the order itself, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder : - "on behalf of the assessee it is stated that the A. V. as. proposed, by the K. M. C. @ 1. 50 sft/per m. for flats) is excessive in view of a. Vs (decided long ago, as found, the first assessment value and continued as such) in case of some nearby flats/complex/ houses etc. . and as such this proposed A. V. should be reduced substantially before deciding the matter which was objected to, by the representative of the K. M. C. The assessee also contended that the Ex. Eng. (C. B) KMC cancelled the C. C and KMC has no authority to take effective quarter of assessment as 1/98-99, but could not show any copy of the letter or record to that effect. Eng. (C. B) KMC cancelled the C. C and KMC has no authority to take effective quarter of assessment as 1/98-99, but could not show any copy of the letter or record to that effect. In context of deciding effect of first assessment, in context of deciding effect of first assessment, in this situation, as per provision of KMC Act under section 178 (5) such effect may well be taken as 1/98-99 as per full occupancy certificate, as per record, was issued by the Ex. Eng. (C. B) on 16. 03. 98. However, on repeated pleading of the assessee. taking into account a letter of the Chairman, NACSL dated 29. 09. 99 addressed to EE (CB) effective quarter of first assessment, on special consideration is allowed as 4/98-99. e. following the quarter when the society got the drainage connection. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 7 ) THEREAFTER, considering the objections raised, order was passed reducing the annual valuation and making it effective from fourth quarter 1998-99, that is, the following quarter when the society got the sewerage connection. Hence, in this backdrop of facts, it is to be considered whether the order passed by the Hearing Officer can be said to be in violation of the procedure established under the law. It is evident from facts that it is admitted that the petitioner was in possession of the flat. However, as evident from the letter dated 25th April, 2003, she chose not to file return under the provisions of the Act till she became owner of the flat. But from the tenor of the written objection, in which she prayed for reduction of annual valuation and the commencement of assessment from first quarter 1999, it is evident that the petitioner was desirous of being brought within the ambit of assessment. Since the petitioner was in occupation of the flat she was liable to be assessed and, thus, the act of the authorities in initiating proceedings for assessment and in passing the order was just and proper. Further, It is not in dispute that the authorities had provided the drainage connection in october, 1998 and had started rendering municipal services. This is a significant event. As soon as services are rendered, the municipal authorities are within their powers to assess and levy tax or a citizen is liable to be assessed and taxed which had happened in the instant case. This is a significant event. As soon as services are rendered, the municipal authorities are within their powers to assess and levy tax or a citizen is liable to be assessed and taxed which had happened in the instant case. In such context, the argument of the petitioner that the action of the respondents was not in accordance with law is not tenable as her intention for reduction of valuation and fixing the annual valuation is manifest from the written objection itself. The express intention of the petitioner, desirous of coming within the ambit of valuation, cannot be lost sight of or overlooked. Such as expression in writing - revealing her conduct - is of prime consideration. That had persuaded the Hearing Officer to consider and pass order. In may view, there was application of mind to the relevant facts and the approach was fair and reasonable. In such circumstances, the question of misuse or abuse of process of law does not arise. The principles of law laid down in Express newspaper (supra), in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association (supra) and in M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. (supra) relied on by the petitioner are not applicable. Such an approach by the Hearing Officer at the behest of the petitioner was justice oriented and should not be reversed. Moreover, as evident, since it was repeatedly pleaded by the petitioner, as a special consideration first assessment was made from fourth quarter 1998-99 instead of first quarter 1998-99. Such order was in consonance with the scheme of the Act as well as in tune with the principles of natural justice as notices were issued for assessment, written objections were invited and accepted, hearing was granted and order was passed. Since annual valuation was reduced, one of the principal relief sought for was accepted. Regarding commencement of annual valuation, the Hearing officer was justified in commencing the annual valuation from fourth quarter 1998-99 as drainage connection was provided in October, 1998. In such circumstances, the petitioner having availed herself of the municipal facility is precluded from raising objection. In such backdrop accepting the contention of the petitioner would mean setting at naught the process all along accepted by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner having availed herself of the municipal facility is precluded from raising objection. In such backdrop accepting the contention of the petitioner would mean setting at naught the process all along accepted by the petitioner. Moreover, the submission of the petitioner that there were no ingredients before the Hearing Officer on which the valuation could be made is not tenable since the written objection filed contained necessary materials for arriving at the annual valuation which according to the petitioner was "true and based on facts" [paragraph 4 (k)- affidavit-in-reply]. Therefore, accepting the contention of the petitioner would mean giving a go-by to the process which was followed by the petitioner. The judgments relied on by the petitioner are, thus, not applicable in view of peculiar facts of the case. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, in my view, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is, hence, dismissed without any order as to costs. .