JUDGMENT : Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. The appellants herein are the co-owners of the premises No. 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata - 700 019 which is a ground plus four storied building. Being aggrieved by the notices of demand dated 2nd April, 2014 and 19th June, 2014 respectively and also by the letter of intimation dated 2nd February, 2014 showing outstanding of the property tax for certain quarters as mentioned therein and on account of failure to consider the objections as mentioned in the letter of the learned advocate of the appellants herein dated 12th March, 2014 and further being aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities to realise property tax on disputed annual valuation, appellants herein filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 27528 (W) of 2014. 2. Challenging the order dated 18th October, 2014 passed by the Hearing Officer-VI confirming the order of annual valuation as passed by the then Hearing Officer-VI dated 16th February, 2013 for different periods in respect of the premises in question and being aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities to realise the property tax of the said premises on the basis of the annual valuation as determined on 16th February, 2013 and confirmed by the present Hearing Officer-VI, subsequently another writ petition being W.P. 31738 (W) of 2014 was filed. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by two separate orders passed by a learned Judge of this Court on 3rd June, 2015 on identical ground namely, for not resorting to the provisions of statutory appeal. While dismissing the writ petitions, learned single Judge did not go into the merits of the controversy in view of the availability of the statutory appeal under the provisions of Section 189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. 3. Challenging both the orders, two separate appeals were preferred by the appellant herein. Both the appeals and the connected applications were heard analogously by this Bench since the facts are similar and issues involved therein are identical in nature. 4. It appears from the available records that the construction of the Ground plus four storied building of the appellants was completed on or about 19th April, 2011 and completion certificate was issued by the Corporation on 29th August, 2011. 5. 4. It appears from the available records that the construction of the Ground plus four storied building of the appellants was completed on or about 19th April, 2011 and completion certificate was issued by the Corporation on 29th August, 2011. 5. On or about 12th December, 2012 the Kolkata Municipal Corporation issued seven notices bearing No. 616502 to 616508 proposing to fix the general valuation of the entire premises. The proposed valuation for the different quarters are as under :- 1) 2nd Quarter 2007-08 Rs. 2,72,080/- 2) 1st Quarter 2008-09 Rs. 1,77,33,320/- 3) 2nd Quarter 2008-09 Rs. 2,12,93,360/- 4) 1st Quarter 2009-10 Rs. 1,84,29,930/- 5) 1st Quarter 2011-12 Rs. 2,01,13,900/- 6) 2nd Quarter 2011-12 Rs. 2,05,93,420/- 7) 1st Quarter 2012-13 Rs. 1,78,45,720/- 6. In all the aforesaid notices, it has been specifically mentioned that the annual valuation of the premises in question was revised on the ground mentioned in Item No. VI which is set out hereunder :- Grounds for revision in the Annual Value assessed: VI. Revaluation of the premises on estimated annual rent less statutory allowance for repairs or revaluation of the premises due to rise of market value of the land or building. 7. In response to the aforesaid notices, objections were filed on behalf of the appellants herein. Ultimately, the Hearing Officer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation determined the annual valuation separately, but the basis of such determination is the actual rent allegedly received by the appellants. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the Hearing Officer while determining the annual valuation refused to take into account the objections raised by the said appellants in an appropriate manner. 9. The learned senior counsel representing the appellants submitted that the Hearing Officer has maintained the prior determination of the annual valuation made by his predecessor. 10. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned senior counsel representing the appellants referred to the ground mentioned in the aforesaid notices and submitted that by not striking out one of the two alternatives mentioned in the said grounds and by issuing the notices mechanically, the concerned authority failed to apply its mind as it was required to do in accordance with principles of natural justice. Mr. Mukherjee relied on the following decisions in this regard :- 1. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras & Anr. v. Ramkishan, Shrikishan Jhaver, reported in AIR 1968 SC 59 (Para-9). 2. Mr. Mukherjee relied on the following decisions in this regard :- 1. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras & Anr. v. Ramkishan, Shrikishan Jhaver, reported in AIR 1968 SC 59 (Para-9). 2. Pramatha Nath Mukherjee & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 70 CWN 508 (Paras.- 19 & 20) 11. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that in terms of Section 403(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, no person can occupy any building or use any building or any part thereof before issuance of completion certificate by the competent authority of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that in the present case, Hearing Officer while purporting to make the assessment had disregarded the aforesaid provisions of Section 403 and proposed annual valuation for the different quarters with effect from 2nd quarters 2007-2008 ignoring the fact that the completion certificate was granted in the year 2011. 12. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel of the appellants specifically urged before this court that where there is violation of natural justice or absence of jurisdiction, the availability of alternative remedy is no bar. 13. Mr. Mukherjee relied on the following decisions in support of the aforesaid arguments:- 1. M/s. Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar, reported in AIR 1969 SC 556 (Para-3). 2. Prosad Kumar Mondal & Ors. v. The Commissioner of Krishnanagore Municipality & Ors., reported in 1978 (1) CLJ 276 (Para 16-21). 3. Commissioner, K.M.C. & Ors. v. Hastings Property & Ors. (APO No. 213 of 2004). 4. Narbada Devi Harlalka & Ors. v. K.M.C. & Ors., reported in AIR 2013 Cal 194 . 14. The learned senior counsel of the appellants further submitted that the notice issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities indicated the ground for revaluation as increase in the valuation of land and building but the Hearing Officer proceeded on contractual rent. According to the appellants, the notice was misleading and resulted in violation of the natural justice. 15. Following decisions were referred to and relied upon by the learned senior counsel of the appellants in this regard :- 1. Food Corporation of India v. State of Punjab, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 291 (Para - 13) 2. Manoshi Mohalanobish v. K.M.C. & Ors., reported in 2008 (1) CHN 924 (Para-8). 16. Mr. 15. Following decisions were referred to and relied upon by the learned senior counsel of the appellants in this regard :- 1. Food Corporation of India v. State of Punjab, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 291 (Para - 13) 2. Manoshi Mohalanobish v. K.M.C. & Ors., reported in 2008 (1) CHN 924 (Para-8). 16. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel of the appellants submitted that in the present case, Hearing Officer proceeded on annual rent and not on estimated rent as required by Section 174. 17. Mr. Mukherjee relied upon the decisions in the case of Prasad Kumar Mondal v. Krishnanagar Municipality (supra) and Lt. Col. P.R. Chaudhary (Retd.) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 577 (Para-6) and also referred to the observations of Lord Buckmaster and Lord Atkinson quoted in Witton Booth on Valuation for Rating. 18. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that estimated value or demand value under Section 174(1) is to be assessed or determined by the Hearing Officer and that actual rent cannot be treated as the estimated value. 19. According to Mr. Mukherjee, in assessing the estimated value, one of the important factors to be taken into consideration is actual rent. Along with actual rent, other matters or aspects are to be considered. 20. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that no return was called for from the appellants and it is not even alleged that the assessor made any inspection. 21. According to the appellants, the assessor has proceeded only on the basis of actual rent in violation of the provisions of Section 174 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act and the principles settled by judicial pronouncement. 22. Mr. Mukherjee specifically submitted that the seven notices issued in December, 2012 for seven different periods from 2nd quarter of 2007-08 to 1st quarter of 2012-13 are illegal and without jurisdiction. 23. Mr. Mukherjee specifically urged that valuation determined for the seven periods are without jurisdiction, as 1. They violate the provisions of Section 174 and there is no attempt to determine the estimated rent of a hypothecated tenant. 2. The so-called notices in each case does not disclose the actual basis of the amount assessed as there are alternatives in the grounds disclosed. 24. Relying on a decision of this court in the case of Shree Mahamaya Mining and Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. 2. The so-called notices in each case does not disclose the actual basis of the amount assessed as there are alternatives in the grounds disclosed. 24. Relying on a decision of this court in the case of Shree Mahamaya Mining and Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors., reported in 1995 (II) CHN 125 , it is submitted that change of tenancy or rent cannot be a taxing event and will be the basis of revision of valuation. 25. Mr. Mukherjee also submitted that K.M.C. Authorities made the assessment after 1st January, 2012 upon taking advantage of Section 232A which has no retrospective effect. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that no revaluation could be made under Section 180(2) (ii) unless there is a change of nature of occupancy. Mr. Mukherjee relied on a decision of this court in the case of Shree Mahamaya Mining and Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and submitted that change of tenancy or rent cannot be a taxing event and the basis of revision of valuation. 26. The learned senior counsel of the appellants submitted that in the present case, initial assessment has been made in violation of law and the principles of natural justice and therefore the appeal cannot validate the proceedings held before the Hearing Officer. 27. It is alleged by the appellants that the actual rent is not the basis provided in Section 174, but the prescribed basis is the rate "at which land or building might at the time of assessment be reasonably expected to let..........". 28. Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General representing the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities submitted that in the present case, annual valuation has been determined strictly in accordance with law. According to Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities, the tenancy agreements themselves prove that it is totally different from other building in the vicinity as the actual rent is much higher and hence, there is no comparable building for the purpose of assessment. Mr. Gupta submitted that annual valuation assessed on the basis of the actual rent was rejected by the court of law only where the actual rent is disclosed to be abnormally low (not high) due to factors like the Tenant is a close relative or higher salami had been received by landlord. 29. Mr. Mr. Gupta submitted that annual valuation assessed on the basis of the actual rent was rejected by the court of law only where the actual rent is disclosed to be abnormally low (not high) due to factors like the Tenant is a close relative or higher salami had been received by landlord. 29. Mr. Gupta also submitted that in commercial tenancies with high rate of rent it is obvious that the same can provide a reasonable basis of valuation on the footing that in a free market (without rent restriction laws, like fixation of fair rent etc.) the rate of rent agreed upon by two commercially prudent parties is the rent at which the property might be "reasonably expected to let". 30. Mr. Gupta further submitted that in the present case, the rent law is specifically excluded and the owner had volunteered to ask the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to make assessment on basis of the "rent realized" and not the "rent realizable". 31. Mr. Gupta specifically submitted that the premises in question is unique of its kind from the nature of Construction, the amenities provided etc. and there is no comparable unit in the vicinity and furthermore, owners themselves, in their objections have requested the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to determine ANNUAL VALUATION on the basis of rent "realized" and not rent "realizable" and (iv) they produced the tenancy agreements. 32. Mr. Gupta submitted that the premises under consideration is a newly constructed one unlike the other buildings in the locality and this is also a situation prompting the owners to ask the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to make the determination on the basis of the rent "realized". 33. According to Mr. Gupta, aforesaid basis of valuation for a newly constructed building is acceptable in law. Mr. Gupta relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Balbir Singh & Ors. v. M/s. M.C.D. & Ors., reported in AIR 1985 SC 339 (Para-13). 34. Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General representing the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities submitted that the learned single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ petition for existence of alternative remedy of statutory appeal. Mr. Gupta submitted that writ cannot be granted to quash the decision of an inferior Court on the ground that the decision was wrong. Mr. 34. Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General representing the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities submitted that the learned single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ petition for existence of alternative remedy of statutory appeal. Mr. Gupta submitted that writ cannot be granted to quash the decision of an inferior Court on the ground that the decision was wrong. Mr. Gupta referred to and relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ebrahim Aboobakar & Anr. v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, reported in AIR 1952 SC 319 . The relevant extracts of the aforesaid judgments are set out hereunder :- "Para-13. .........................................It is plain that such a writ cannot be granted to quash the decision of an inferior court within its jurisdiction on the ground that the decision is wrong. Indeed, it must be shown before such a writ is issued that the authority which passed the order acted without jurisdiction or in excess of it or in violation of the principles of natural justice...................................". 35. Mr. Gupta submitted that the authority which passed the order did not act without jurisdiction or in excess of it or in violation of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Gupta submitted that the authority having jurisdiction if made a mistake while exercising such a jurisdiction, aggrieved party can only take the course prescribed by law for setting the matters right. 36. Mr. Gupta also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, W.B. v. Dunlop India Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 1985 SC 330 (Para-3). The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgments is set out hereunder :- "Para-3. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa ( AIR 1983 SC 603 ) A.P. Sen, E.S. Venkataramiah and R.B. Misra JJ. held that where the statute itself provided the petitioners with an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Prescribed Authority, a second appeal to the Tribunal and thereafter to have the case stated to the High Court, it was not for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ignoring as it were, the complete statutory machinery. That it has become necessary, even now, for us to repeat this admonition is indeed a matter of tragic concern to us. That it has become necessary, even now, for us to repeat this admonition is indeed a matter of tragic concern to us. Article 226 is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely, matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged." 37. Mr. Gupta submitted that in the present case, determination was made by the competent officer and if there was any error and/or irregularity and/or illegality, the same should be corrected in appeal under Section 189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 as per the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Ebrahim Aboobakar & Anr. v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi (supra). 38. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that a party is entitled to know the reason for and the basis on which the enhancement of Annual Valuation is proposed and when an assessment is made on a ground different from the one stated, it is in violation of natural justice as such person will not know beforehand the basis and hence cannot take a proper stand. 39. The learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities submitted that the determination of annual valuation was made in the present case on the same ground as was mentioned in the hearing notices. Mr. 39. The learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities submitted that the determination of annual valuation was made in the present case on the same ground as was mentioned in the hearing notices. Mr. Gupta submitted that the proposal for enhancement of ANNUAL VALUATION was made on basis of Ground (vi) which reads : "Revaluation of the premises on estimated annual rent less statutory allowance for repairs or revaluation of the premises due to rise of market value of the land or building". 40. Mr. Gupta specifically urged before this Court that the assesse was well aware of the fact that the proposed enhancement was on rental basis. Mr. Gupta submitted that the assesse concerned provided the tenancy agreements and requested the Hearing Officer to make the determination on the basis of the rent "realized" and thus the ground was fully known to the assesse and they had participated in the proceedings on such basis. 41. Mr. Gupta submitted that the plea of violation of natural justice is ill-conceived. 42. The learned senior counsel of the appellants raised objection with regard to the determination of annual valuation for seven different periods at the same time. According to the appellants, annual valuation can be altered in every 6 (six) years through General Revision. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the circumstances mentioned in Section 180 for interim revision of ANNUAL VALUATION do not exist here and there is no enabling provision for taking up assessment for several periods together. 43. Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities submitted that under Section 178(5) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, the building is assessable from the quarter after completion certificate is granted or upon actual occupancy of the same. 44. Mr. Gupta also submitted that the tenancy agreement disclosed periodic changes in the rate of rent. Mr. Gupta submitted that the determination of ANNUAL VALUATION for different periods based on the same set of tenancy agreement does not make sense in fixing different dates of hearing for each period and passing different order for each period. 45. Mr. Gupta submitted that there is no bar under Section 180 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 to take up interim valuation more than one at a time. 46. 45. Mr. Gupta submitted that there is no bar under Section 180 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 to take up interim valuation more than one at a time. 46. The learned senior counsel of the appellants also urged another point before this Bench that the interim valuation done by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is without jurisdiction and a nullity in view of the fact that Section 180(2)(ii) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 stood deleted from the statute book in 2006. 47. The said Section was only revived in terms of Section 232A with effect from 1st January, 2012. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel of the appellants submitted that for a period 2007-2012, Section 180(2)(ii) stood replaced as follows :- "When the nature of occupancy changes" 48. Previously, Section 180(2)(ii) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 reads as "When any tenancy or any rent changes" which stood replaced in the year 2006 and subsequently, revived in terms of Section 232A with effect from 1st January, 2012. 49. Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General submitted on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authority that in the present case, authority was invoked in terms of Section 180(2)(ii) as well as 180(2)(ix) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act which reads as follows :- "(ii) When the nature of occupancy changes. (ix) When it becomes necessary so to do for any other reason to be recorded in writing." 50. Referring to the order of the Hearing Officer, Mr. Gupta submitted that for the period 1/2008-09 occupancy changed as M/s. Spencers Retail Limited was inducted as a tenant for a rental of Rs. 16,25,000/- per month in terms of the agreement dated 20.04.2007. 51. Mr. Gupta also submitted that for the period 2/2008-09 M/s. Transcent Infrastructure Limited was inducted as a tenant for a rental of Rs. 2,96,000/- per month in terms of agreement dated 29.08.2008. However, owner's portion was valued at Rs. 4.80 per month per Square foot keeping parity of the nearest building. 52. Mr. Gupta submitted that for the period 1/2009-10 the valuation was arrived on the basis of an agreement between Spencers Ltd. And M/s. Intrasoft Technologies Ltd. The said Intrasoft Technologies was inducted as tenant for a rental of Rs. 2,49,210/- per month by M/s. Spencers Retail Ltd. vide agreement dated 23.04.2009. 53. Mr. 52. Mr. Gupta submitted that for the period 1/2009-10 the valuation was arrived on the basis of an agreement between Spencers Ltd. And M/s. Intrasoft Technologies Ltd. The said Intrasoft Technologies was inducted as tenant for a rental of Rs. 2,49,210/- per month by M/s. Spencers Retail Ltd. vide agreement dated 23.04.2009. 53. Mr. Gupta therefore, submitted that for the periods 1/2008-09, 2/2008-09 and 1/2009-10 occupancy of the premises went on changing. According to Mr. Gupta, since the occupancy went on changing, invocation of Section 180(2)(ii) of the amended provision was very much correct. Mr. Gupta also submitted that for the periods 01/2011-12 and 02/2011-12 the valuation was done in terms of Section 180(2)(ix) which reads as "When it become necessary so to do for any other reason to be recorded in writing". According to Mr. Gupta, here the reason is change of rent and the said reason has been provided by the Hearing Officer in his order. 54. Referring to Section 390 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, Mr. Gupta submitted that the word "Occupancy" and "User" has been used synonymously whereas Section 180(2)(ii) and Section 180(2)(iii) makes a clear distinction between "change in the occupancy" and "Change in the use". 55. Mr. Gupta submitted before this Court that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authority and specially Hearing Officer acted within its jurisdiction. 56. Having heard the learned senior counsel of both the parties and on examination of the materials on record, we find that the Hearing Officer being the Prescribed Authority under the statute revised the annual valuation in respect of the property in question and served hearing notices inviting written objections in respect of the said annual valuation on the ground specifically mentioned in the said notices i.e., Ground No. VI. The appellants herein duly understood the grounds on which annual valuation was revised in respect of the property in question for the specified quarter and accordingly, submitted written objections upon receiving the said hearing notices. The representative of the appellants also participated in the hearing before the Hearing Officer. Before the Hearing Officer, it was specifically submitted on behalf of the appellants that the annual valuation should be determined on the basis of realised rent only and not on "realizable rent". The representative of the appellants also participated in the hearing before the Hearing Officer. Before the Hearing Officer, it was specifically submitted on behalf of the appellants that the annual valuation should be determined on the basis of realised rent only and not on "realizable rent". The relevant extracts from the written objections of the appellants are quoted hereunder:- "March 15, 2013 To Sri Khalil Ahmed, IAS, The Municipal Commissioner The Kolkata Municipal Corporation 5, S.N. Banerjee Road, Kolkata - 700 013. Sub : Reconsideration and review of the Annual Valuation in respect of Premises No. 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata on some reasonable grounds stated below. Ref: Notice Nos. 616502 to 616508 all dated 12.12.2012 and Hearing held on 16.02.2013 at the chamber of Hearing Officer-VI at the office of the K.M.C. Sir, We would like to inform you that the finalisation of Annual Valuation in respect of Premises No. 145, Rash Behari Avenue was going on for quite sometime. Finally, a hearing was afforded to our authorised representative on 16th February, 2013 for finalisation of Annual Valuation in respect of the aforesaid premises by the learned Hearing Officer-VI of your esteemed organization. In this connection, we would like to make the following submissions- (a) In the Rental Method of assessment of Annual Valuation the gross amount of Annual Rent realizable by the Landlord in respect of a particular premises is considered for the purpose of fixation of Annual Valuation. But, since tenants/lessees deduct from the payable rent the amount on account of tax from the source, the actual realised amount becomes far less than the realizable amount on account of statutory deduction. Accordingly, the Rental Method should consider the actual rent realised by the Landlord and not the notional rent which is realizable. In the instant case, amount deducted regularly by different tenants are enumerated. In the tabular form in Annexure-I. We submit that the Annual Valuation should be considered on the basis of realised rent only and not on "realizable rent". In this context we may cite a decision taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of Calcutta v. Jugal Kishore Dhandhania 1976 that the taxing authority under Calcutta Act can take into consideration the rent, which the tenants exactly pay to the Landlord ................................................" (Emphasis applied) 57. In this context we may cite a decision taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of Calcutta v. Jugal Kishore Dhandhania 1976 that the taxing authority under Calcutta Act can take into consideration the rent, which the tenants exactly pay to the Landlord ................................................" (Emphasis applied) 57. The Hearing Officer being the Competent Authority considered the objections made on behalf of the assesse concerned namely, the appellants herein and determined the annual valuation in respect of the specified quarter/period. In the event, the appellants are aggrieved by the aforesaid revision of the annual valuation then the appellants should exhaust the alternative statutory remedy available under the statute by preferring appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, W.B. v. Dunlop India Ltd. & Ors. (supra) specifically held :- "Art. 226 is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely, matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters." 58. In the present case, we do not find any reason to bypass the alternative remedy available under the statute. We are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly refused to entertain the writ petitions on merits since the appellants herein did not exhaust the alternative remedy available under the statute. We therefore, affirm the decision of the learned single Judge and dismiss both the appeals as well as the connected applications without awarding any costs.