Judgment : The Court: The petitioner in this WP under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated April 17, 2013 is questioning an order of the Hearing Officer-III of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short KMC) dated November 7, 2012 (W P p.32). The order is quoted below:- “RO is absent. AAC is present. Heard. Considering the prevailing rate of adjoining premises A.V. is fixed at Rs.2,14,140 including NRAV 35640 as exparte.” Case stated in paras.22 and 23 of the WP is as follows:- “22. However, the instant purported process was finalized and the final order passed ex parte without giving or serving any prior notice upon your petitioner. 23. The said purported process was, therefore, continued and finalized in gross violation of the provision of Section 184(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and in gross and flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play.” The annual value determination issue was to start under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, s.184(4), which is quoted below:- “(4). Before making any revision of annual value under sub-section (2) of section 180 and clause (a), clause (b) and clause (c) of section 185, the Municipal Commissioner shall give the owner, any lessee, sub-lessee or occupier of any land or building, notice of not less than thirty days that he proposes to make the revision and consider any objection which may be made by such owner, lessee, sub-lessee or occupier.” It is not disputed that the petitioner was and is the assessee of the premises with respect to which the hearing officer passed the impugned order fixing its annual value for the purpose of property tax. In view of the provisions of s.184(4) the petitioner was entitled to a notice of the annual value proposed by the Municipal Commissioner and on receipt of notice the petitioner could file objections, if any. Mr Mukherjee appearing for KMC has submitted that the officials of KMC could not show him anything regarding service of notice on the petitioner under s.184(4). This, in my opinion, is sufficient to set aside the order of the hearing officer; for the annual value of the premises could not be determined (by way of revision) without first serving on the petitioner a notice under s.184(4). This, in my opinion, is sufficient to set aside the order of the hearing officer; for the annual value of the premises could not be determined (by way of revision) without first serving on the petitioner a notice under s.184(4). Mr Mukherjee has further submitted that as a matter of practice annual valuation cases are sent to the hearing officer immediately after the annual value is proposed by the Municipal Commissioner. He has clarified by saying that it is not that only when the person to whom the s.184(4) notice is sent and an objection to the proposed value is received, the annual value determination issue is sent to the officer appointed under s.187 of the Act. Section 186 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is quoted below:- “186. Objections against valuation of assessment.–Any objection to the annual value determined by Corporation under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 180 or clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c) of section 185, shall be made by the owner or the person liable to pay the property tax, in writing, to the Municipal Commissioner before the date fixed in the notice under sub-section (4) of section 184 and shall state in what respect the annual value is disputed.” Section 188 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is quoted below:- “188. Hearing of objections.– (1) Objections filed under section 186 shall be entered in a register maintained for the purpose in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) On the date, time and place specified under sub-section (3) or subsection (4) of section 184 and after giving the person filing the objections an opportunity of being heard, either in person or through an authorised agent, the officer appointed under section 187 shall determine the objections. (3) When an objection has been determined, the order in this behalf shall be recorded in the register maintained under sub-section (1) with the date, and a copy of the order shall be supplied within thirty days thereof to the person filing the objection in such form and manner as may be prescribed. (4) The procedure for hearing and disposal of objections shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) The procedure for hearing and disposal of objections shall be such as may be prescribed. (5) The valuation fixed after determination of objection under this section shall take effect from the quarter in which such valuation would have taken effect and shall continue to remain in force during the period such valuation would have remained in force, had no objection been filed.” It is evident from the provisions of s.186 that a person served with a notice under s.184(4) is to submit objections, if any, only in writing. In view of the provisions of s.187, objections submitted by a person served with a notice under s.184(4) are to be heard and determined only by an officer appointed thereunder. Hence unless objections are submitted under s.186 an annual value issue is not to go to the officer. The practice is a wrong one. Section 188(5) leads to this. Under s.188 of the Act the hearing officer has to determine the objections submitted by a person served with a notice under s.184(4). There is no provision for extension of time to file objections under s.184(4) read with s.186. Hence the hearing officer has no power to permit extension of time to file objections by a person to the annual value proposed by the Municipal Commissioner. In this case no notice under s.184(4) was served on the petitioner. Even then the issue was referred to the hearing officer. This was an impermissible act. The question of passing an ex parte order by the hearing officer could arise only if the petitioner having been served with a s.184(4) notice had submitted objections within the period mentioned in s.184(4). It is, therefore, evident that the Municipal Commissioner and the hearing officer followed a wrong procedure. Although the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of the hearing officer was entitled to appeal to the Tribunal under s.189, he has decided to approach this Court without first exhausting the remedy of appeal. In my opinion, this is a fit case for interference in exercise of power under art.226. For these reasons, I set aside the impugned order and allow the WP to this extent. Nothing herein shall prevent the Municipal Commissioner from serving the petitioner a notice under s.184(4) mentioning the proposed annual value of the premises and giving the petitioner opportunity of submitting objections. No costs.