Judgment :- 1. Petitioner is running a hotel in the name and style as “Hotel Ashoka” situated within the respondent-Corporation area. The said hotel is assessed to the property tax. In 2003, the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act got amended and after the amendment to the provisions of Chapter X of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the hotel is assessed under the Self-Assessment Scheme. 2. However, the Corporation issued a demand notice for payment of tax for the period between 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2002, and the petitioner had called in question the said demand before the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee partly allowed and refixed the annual rateable value at Rs.2,20,000/-, from Rs.2,21,560/-as against which the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.31235/2002, which came to be dismissed, and thereafter, Writ Appeal No.882/2007 was filed. The said writ appeal was disposed of by this Court by order dated 15th July 2009, wherein the Division Bench of this Court referring to order passed in Writ Appeal No.1073/2007 disposed of the writ appeal of the petitioner, with direction to the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the orders passed in W.A.No.1073/2007. 3. It appears that after the disposal of the writ appeal, petitioner approached the Corporation with an representation dated 31.07.2009 inter alia stating that, the rateable value of the building in 1996-97 was only Rs.64,000/-and stated that the enhanced rateable value is Rs.1,25,000/-agreed to pay the tax accordingly. The Commissioner accepted the said offer by making an endorsement on the letter of offer submitted by the petitioner. In pursuance of the acceptance of the offer the Corporation issued demand notice under Rule 12 of Part II Schedule III to the Act was issued to the petitioner. Again the petitioner made on more representation on 09.10.2009 inter alia stating that the rateable value stated at Rs.1,25,000/-is on the higher side and not in consonance with the order passed by this Court and sought for reduction of the rateable value, as against which, the Corporation issued a reply dated 13.10.2009 inter alia refusing to reduce the rateable value. Being aggrieved by the said demand, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. 4. Being aggrieved by the said demand, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. 4. After noticing the fact that the rateable value is not determined in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, this Court had called upon the counsel representing the Corporation to place records as regards the basis on which the rateable value is determined. Though the records were produced, however, it is found that there is no determination of the rateable value as contemplated under Section 109 of the Act nor any determination in terms of the part II of Schedule III of the Act. 5. This Court in W.A.No.1073/2007 disposed of on 26.02.2009 in respect of the appellant therein, the Corporation was directed to consider the representation of the appellant therein in terms of the orders passed in respect of the Padma and Shrinivas theatres for reducing the liability of tax for the assessment year 1996-97 and directed the respondent to pass appropriate orders. Neither in the order passed by this Court in W.A.No.1073/2007 nor in Writ Appeal No.882/2007 there is any direction by this Court for assessment of rateable value de hors to the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act and the Schedule. 6. Chapter X deals with the enumeration of tax. The relevant provision for method of assessment is contemplated under Section 109 of the Act, which reads as under – “109. Method of assessment of property tax – (1) every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as appurtenances thereto unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site or premises. (2) The rateable value of a building or land shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which such building or land may at the time of assessment reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year less a deduction in the case of buildings only of sixteen and two-thirds per cent of such annual rent and the said deduction shall be in lieu of all allowances for repairs or on any other account whatever” 7. Section 109 make it abundantly clear that for the purpose of determination of rateable value, the Corporation is required to determine monthly rent or annual rent for which the building or premises is likely to fetch. Section 109 make it abundantly clear that for the purpose of determination of rateable value, the Corporation is required to determine monthly rent or annual rent for which the building or premises is likely to fetch. If it is not possible to assess the rateable value of the land, the proviso provides for determination of rateable value of the premises at 6% of the estimated market value of the land and estimated cost of the building at the time of assessment of rateable value. 8. Procedure is contemplated in Part II of Schedule III of the Act, wherein under Rule 4, the Commissioner is required to make entry in the assessment register or a book, as regard to the particulars enumerated therein and such assessment shall be revised by the Commissioner once in a five years. Rule 8 confers power on the Commissioner for amending the property tax between one general revision and another subject to issuing notice to the parties concerned by taking into consideration the valuation of the property as contemplated in the said provision. If there is any assessment for the first time of the property, the Commissioner, by invoking provisions of Rule 9, may determine the rateable value for the purpose of assessing tax and for which the owner of the building not being less than 30 days before the end half year may make an application to the Commissioner for reducing tax. Any petition filed under Rules 7, 9 and 10 shall be required to be disposed of after hearing the parties concerned. Immediately after the disposal of the revision, the Commissioner shall inform the concerned party n writing, of the orders passed thereon and shall direct him to pay the amount fixed on the revision within 15 days in terms of Rule 12. 9. Insofar as the assessment of property tax is concerned, as existed prior to the Amendment Act 32 of 2003 which came into force from 28.02.2003, the tax was assessed on the basis of rateable value determined under Section 109 of the Act and the tax is revised once in five years as contemplated under Part II of Schedule III of the Act. 10. However, a very strange method has been adopted by this Corporation particular in the matter of assessment of property tax. 10. However, a very strange method has been adopted by this Corporation particular in the matter of assessment of property tax. Though the register as contemplated under Rule 4 of Part II of Schedule III of the Act is maintained, but it does not disclose the relevant entries. The rateable value once determined in general revision and entry is made in the register, it will remain for five years unless altered. There is no record to show any objection stated to have been filed within the stipulated time. It is submitted that the general revision took place in 1996 and under the general revision, the property tax has been enhanced. According to the Corporation the rateable value was fixed at Rs.2,21,560/-and the Standing Committee had reduced the same to Rs.2,20,000/-. If that is the final rateable value, there is no other rateable value determined. There cannot be any dispute that the property has to be assessed under the provisions of the Act. 11. No doubt, that the petitioner had filed W.A.No.882/2007, this Court had disposed of the writ appeal by only observing that in terms of the order passed in another writ appeal, a direction could be issued to consider the case of the petitioner. Barring this, there is no other order passed by this court. To consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the order passed in another writ appeal, does not mean that the Corporation can assess property tax de horse to provisions of the Act, and further consideration of representation does not mean to ignore the law that is applicable. Such consideration amounts to illegal assessment. However, in this case, the Commissioner has casually accepted the offer of the petitioner. Neither it is based on the rateable value registered in the Register maintained under Rule 4 of Part II of Schedule nor is based on any fresh determination of the rateable value. For the relevant period the law applicable was to assess the property tax based on the rateable value. Neither appellate Authority or the Commissioner has any discretion, in the matter of determination of the rateable value contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is seen that neither in the case of Srinivas and Padma talkies nor in the case of this petitioner any procedure known to law is adopted. Neither appellate Authority or the Commissioner has any discretion, in the matter of determination of the rateable value contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is seen that neither in the case of Srinivas and Padma talkies nor in the case of this petitioner any procedure known to law is adopted. In turn in this case what is stated by the petitioner is accepted, in the other cases, based on the discretion of the Commissioner, de horse to the procedure the tax is determined. 12. The tax statute has to be construed strictly, as it involves the fiscal liability, it does not give any power to the authority to use there own method or to use the discretion. The Commissioner has rendered the taxing provisions under the Act and Rules meaningless. This kind of use of discretion amounts to acting at one’s own fancy. 13. Be that as it may. In this case, what is found is, the erratic way of assessing the property tax and further the tax is not based on the rateable value or estimated market value of the property. There is no decision either by the Corporation or by the Commissioner or by the Standing Committee in the matter of determination of rateable value. This only discloses the Corporation and the Officers concerned are exercising their own discretion in the matter of imposition of tax. 14. It may be necessary to mention that, the Corporation is not an ordinary institution. The Constitution was amended by the Seventy-fourth Amendment Act of 1992, inserting Chapter IXA. Municipality has been defined as an institution of self-government constituted under Article 243 Q and power is conferred on the State legislature to make law. Article 243X confers power on the Municipality to impose tax and the state legislature is conferred with the power to legislate the law in this regard. 15. After the 74th Amendment to the Constitution, there are some change and the provisions of Municipalities, being self-government and regulated by the provisions of the Act. It is not the discretion of any of the officials, particularly, in the matter of assessment of property tax or any other tax to fix the property tax. 15. After the 74th Amendment to the Constitution, there are some change and the provisions of Municipalities, being self-government and regulated by the provisions of the Act. It is not the discretion of any of the officials, particularly, in the matter of assessment of property tax or any other tax to fix the property tax. Corporation being a custodian and the trustee of the public property and public fund, it cannot act in derrogance of the provisions of the Act and, more so, in the matter of tax, the tax law cannot be interpreted on the on the hardship or a discretion which cannot be conferred on the authority. However, without their being any direction of this Court for reduction of tax either in the matter of the petitioner or in other matter, Corporation adopting method of its own in utter disregard to the provisions of Section 109 and Part II of Schedule III of the Act, a levy has been made, and it shows the drastic reduction in the rateable value and consequently the reduction in the tax. 16. For example, in some cases, rateable value was fixed at Rs.4,00,000/-is reduced to Rs.86,400/-and Rs.3,80,000/-is reduced to Rs.72,000/-, and there are many other matters and the drastic reduction in the rateable value results in reducing the property tax. 17. Despite giving several opportunity to the respondent-corporation, it has now filed an affidavit sworn to by the Commissioner and, in the affidavit also, nothing is disclosed as to what is the basis on which the rateable value is determined; what is reason for reduction of rateable value from Rs.4,00,000/-to Rs.86,400/-and Rs.3,80,000/-to Rs.72,000/-or even in this case rateable value earlier fixed at Rs.2,21,000/-is reduced to Rs.1,25,000/-. This would demoralise the law abiding citizen to lose faith in the system. If this is continued, then every body will try to please the official to use their alleged discretion in getting the tax reduced. With great respect, I say that ingenious method has been adopted by the Corporation in he matter of revising the rateable value. This would demoralise the law abiding citizen to lose faith in the system. If this is continued, then every body will try to please the official to use their alleged discretion in getting the tax reduced. With great respect, I say that ingenious method has been adopted by the Corporation in he matter of revising the rateable value. No person howsoever high he is placed, he is not above the law, he must act in consonance with the provisions of law and, more so, the executive, who are the persons who administer the affairs of self-government, they must act in consonance with the provisions of the Act and not in derrogance of the provisions of the Act. 18. It is very strange that the Commissioner having sworn to an affidavit, and he has not specified as to what is the basis for determining the rateable value and reducing the rateable value in some case. If such a procedure is accepted then there would not be any sanctity for the provisions of law. It only gives an impression that in pick and choose case, tax are determined according to the whims and fancies of the concerned authority. 19. Considering the above, I must direct the Corporation to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. Section 109 is very clear as regards the determination of rateable value. When the law provides for certain procedure, there is no power to the authority to adopt different procedure. 20. Now, the question that arises is, who should make good the loss, the Corporation has suffered loss because of some of the officials. Commissioner, who was asked to file affidavit, has sworn to the affidavit and fairly admits that, the rateable value was fixed at Rs.2,21,560/-, which was reduced to Rs.2,20,000/-by the Standing Committee for Taxation. Thereafter, it is not known as to why Rs.1,25,000/-is accepted. If these figures even if they are taken as stated in the affidavit also, it shows that, loss is caused to the Corporation in this case also. Even in case of pilferage of one rupee, the Apex Court has taken a stringent view in not pardoning the person who has committed pilferage. If these figures even if they are taken as stated in the affidavit also, it shows that, loss is caused to the Corporation in this case also. Even in case of pilferage of one rupee, the Apex Court has taken a stringent view in not pardoning the person who has committed pilferage. It is not the property of an individual or person, it is the property of the public and the tax is collected for the public benefit, there cannot be any compromise or discretion in the person who fix the rateable value or the tax according to his choice. 21. Smt. Sharmila, M.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation relief on the order passed by the division Bench of the Court in W.A.No.1073/2007 inter alia submitted that this Court had directed the Commissioner to pass an order in consonance with the order passed in the matter of Padma and Srinivas theatre, and as such the rateable stated by the petitioner is accepted. 22. It is useful to refer to the order passed by this Court. Para 4 of the order refers to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking reduction of the tax in pursuance of the order passed in the matter of Padma talkies and Srinivasa talkies, where it appears that the Corporation has reduced the rateable value from Rs.3,80,000/-to Rs.72,000/-and from Rs.4,00,000/-to Rs.86,400/-for the year 1996-97. This Court at para 5 has noted that, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Corporation wherein the learned counsel had submitted that, the Corporation would consider the case of the appellant therein, if the appellant makes an application in consonance with the Padma talkies and Srinivas talkies. It is based on these submissions, this court placing the submission of both the counsel on record had directed the corporation. This Court had neither dealt with the matter on merits nor the Court was made known as to why levy of rateable tax was reduced in the matter of Padma and Srinivasa Talkies. 23. As noticed above, the Corporation, at no point of time, had adhered to the provisions of law and had, in turn, abusing the authority of law sought to reduce the rateable value. Such an action would not only reduces the exchequer of the Corporation but would amount to approving the discriminatory exercise of power. Commissioner is not an ordinary person. As noticed above, the Corporation, at no point of time, had adhered to the provisions of law and had, in turn, abusing the authority of law sought to reduce the rateable value. Such an action would not only reduces the exchequer of the Corporation but would amount to approving the discriminatory exercise of power. Commissioner is not an ordinary person. Commissioner is a Chief Executive of the Corporation and corporation being a self-government, all functions of the Corporation are dealt with by the Commissioner and in utter disregard to the Rule of law and in disregard to the legislation has acted and has passed the impugned order. This is not only in this case, but in the cases referred to above. It is nothing but abuse of authority of law. Hence, I am constrained to pass the following order: ORDER Writ petition stands disposed of. The Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Act and Schedule III Part II of the Schedule. The copy of this order be marked to the Director of Municipal Administration and the Secretary to the Ministry for Municipal Administration for their information.