JUDGMENT : Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. The following issues are to be determined in the present case :- (a) Whether alleged enquiry report could be prepared by the competent authority without following the procedure as prescribed in statute as also without supplying the enquiry report and draft statement to the petitioner which clearly shows violation of natural justice? (b) Whether facts and figures pertinent to the quantum of retain land as noted during the course of joint representation by both the parties could be given complete go bye at the time of preparing the statement by the competent authority? 2. Facts of the case in brief is as follows : Petitioner is a lessee in respect of premises no. 20, Seven Tanks Lane, Kolkata-700 030. The said property was leased out by the Rayat to the petitioner long back in the year 1961. The said property is measuring about 20,533.89 sq. mt. having factory shed, dwelling house, temple, go down, labour quarter etc. Out of the said total area of land a portion of land measuring about 1773 sq. mt. was taken away by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for construction of road. A proceeding under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was initiated against the petitioner by the competent authority without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to submit their objection. Therefore, the petitioner challenging the said final statement dated 18th June, 2007 preferred a statutory appeal under Section 33 of the said Act of 1976 being Appeal No.7 of 2007 before the Principal Secretary under Urban Development Department being the appellate authority. The said final statement dated 18th June, 2007 prepared by the competent authority was set aside by the appellate authority on 18th May, 2013 thereby directing the petitioner to send its representations during the fresh field enquiry as directed to be held. Against the non-action and inaction on the part of the competent authority to hold fresh field enquiry the petitioner moved before this Hon’ble Court by filling a writ petition being WP No. 1116 (W) of 2014. The Hon’ble Court on 22nd January, 2014 disposed of the said writ petition thereby directing the competent authority, Kolkata to take an appropriate decision on the basis of the order of the appellate authority dated 18th May, 2013 within a period of two months from the date of completion of the field enquiry. The Hon’ble Court on 22nd January, 2014 disposed of the said writ petition thereby directing the competent authority, Kolkata to take an appropriate decision on the basis of the order of the appellate authority dated 18th May, 2013 within a period of two months from the date of completion of the field enquiry. Thereafter on 27th January, 2014 in presence of the petitioner’s engineer a spot enquiry was held by the competent authority. After such joint spot enquiry on 18th February, 2014 the petitioner made a representation to the competent authority indicating inter-alia, that upon the facts found during such joint enquiry the total retainable land would be 28827 sq. mt.. Accordingly, there was no excess vacant land as has been claimed by the competent authority. The competent authority on 14th March, 2013 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case considered the petitioner’s representation dated 18th February, 2014 and rejected the same on the ground stating inter-alia “ Appears to be not in keeping with ground reality and calculation appears to have no base and so the prayer is rejected. But before that exercise the undersigned has to give the lessee i.e. the appellant herein an opportunity of being heard in pursuance of the order of the appellate authority. Therefore, the date of hearing is fixed on 24th March, 2013 at 11 a.m.” On 24th March, 2014 hearing was held and it was recorded as follows : “Detailed before him the result of the spot enquiry the finding in the report submitted by Sri S.R. Mukhopadhyay and the observation of the undersigned as a result of the said report. It was made it clear to the appellant that the excess vacant land might to assessed to the tune of 14822.0 sq. mt. –10,616.78 sq. mt. and the final statement would be prepared accordingly”. It is also apparent from writ petition that till 24th March, 2014 no copy of enquiry report as well as the draft statement was supplied to the petitioner. Without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the allegation regarding difference the petitioner’s representation dated 18th February, 2014 was rejected on 14th March, 2014. Thereafter on the basis of that report made on 25th March, 2014 the final statement dated 27th March, 2014 was served upon the petitioner thereby indicating that 10617.78 sq. mt. Without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the allegation regarding difference the petitioner’s representation dated 18th February, 2014 was rejected on 14th March, 2014. Thereafter on the basis of that report made on 25th March, 2014 the final statement dated 27th March, 2014 was served upon the petitioner thereby indicating that 10617.78 sq. mt. is the total retainable land and excess vacant land is 4208.82 sq. mt.. It is important to mention that prior to hearing on 24th March, 2014 since no copy of the enquiry as well as the draft statement were supplied to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner without finding any alternative after getting certified copies on 11th April, 2014 raised objection on 24th April, 2014 against such report indicating details of differences but such representation dated 24th April, 2014 was rejected vide order dated 15th May, 2014, thereby without allowing the petitioner to avail the benefit under Section 4 of the said Act. As a result whereof proceedings were initiated against the owner. 3. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that entire proceedings as well as the final statement dated 25th March, 2014 issued by the competent authority Kolkata is very patently contrary to the existing law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Mr. Mukherjee further emphasized that the proceedings as well as the final statement stand vitiated on non-supply of copies of enquiry report of the Officer as well as draft statement to the petitioner, before the hearing which deprived the petitioner of the sufficient opportunity to properly defend his case. In support of his contention Mr. Mukherjee relied on a decision reported in 1993 (1) SCC Page-13, Para-4 (State Bank Of India And Others vs D.C. Aggarwal And Another) 5. Mr. Mukherjee further strongly argued that since the representation dated 18th February, 2014 was rejected without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to substantiate his grievances, therefore, the entire proceeding should be treated as non-est. 6. Mr. Mukherjee further strongly argued that the competent authority’s letters dated 5th May, 2014 and 15th May, 2014 thereby intimating that at that stage there is no scope for fresh enquiry or withdrawal of the order dated 25th march, 2014 are wholly contrary to law and very much against the natural justice. 7. Mr. 6. Mr. Mukherjee further strongly argued that the competent authority’s letters dated 5th May, 2014 and 15th May, 2014 thereby intimating that at that stage there is no scope for fresh enquiry or withdrawal of the order dated 25th march, 2014 are wholly contrary to law and very much against the natural justice. 7. Mr. Mukherjee also pointed out that benefit of Section 5 (I) of the said Act, 1976 i.e. 500 sq. mt. has not been given to the petitioner and the benefit of 75/80 year old boundary wall was not also allowed in favour of the petitioner. On the contrary it was recorded in the inspection book of the Kolkata Municipal corporation that there were dwelling houses, garden, tanks. But the competent authority has not excluded garden. Furthermore, curiously enough even said garden has not been disclosed in the enquiry report. 8. Mr. Mukherjee also argued that availability of alternative remedy by way of filing statutory appeal cannot be a bar to file writ petition. More so, the maintainability point was not raised at the time of moving the said writ petition and it was also not mentioned in the order-sheet that maintainability point is kept open. Therefore at the final stage the authority cannot raise the point of maintainability. In support of the proposition that alternative remedy is not a bar to file writ petition before the Hon’ble Court Mr. Mukherjee relied on following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as High Court : (a) AIR 1969 Sc, Page-556 (M/s. Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari vs ntarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar) (b) 1998 (8) SCC, Page-1 (Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai And Others) (c) 2007 (9) SCC, Page-593, Para-47 (Popcorn Entertainment And Another vs City Industrial Development Corpn. And Another) (d) 1994 (5) SCC, Page-118, Para-4 (Mohd. Quaramuddin (Dead) By LRS vs State of A.P) (e) AIR 1998 (Cal), Page-84 (Fosie Chung Cheneova vs Bendra Chander Roy and Others) (f) 2011 (2) CLJ, Page-407, Paras-12 & 13 (Sri Ashok Saha vs Smt. Mira Shaw) 9. In conclusion Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the impugned report of the Additional Urban Land Ceiling Officer dated 27th January, 2014/7th February, 2014 and also the order passed by the competent authority Kolkata on 14th March, 2014, 24th March, 2014, 25th March, 2014 and 15th May, 2014 should be set aside and quashed as unsustainable in law. 10. In conclusion Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the impugned report of the Additional Urban Land Ceiling Officer dated 27th January, 2014/7th February, 2014 and also the order passed by the competent authority Kolkata on 14th March, 2014, 24th March, 2014, 25th March, 2014 and 15th May, 2014 should be set aside and quashed as unsustainable in law. 10. Per contra, Mr. L.K. Gupta, Learned Additional Advocate General strongly argued that at the time of spot enquiry conducted by the competent authority on 27th January, 2014 the representative of the petitioner was very much present and as per direction of the appellate authority the competent authority Kolkata asked the petitioner to appear for a hearing and the petitioner’s representative participated in the hearing when the draft statement was inspected by the said representative. But the same was objected on the ground that the draft statement was not in terms of the joint enquiry. Subsequently the petitioner submitted a representation on 26th March, 2014 and final statement was prepared on 25th March, 2014 and served upon the petitioner on 27th March, 2014. Thereafter the petitioner asked for the certified copies of the inspection report and the competent authority supplied the petitioner on 11th April, 2014 the certified copies of the enquiry report dated 27th January, 2014, 7th February, 2014 and the order of the competent authority dated 14th March, 2014, 24th March, 2014 and 25th March, 2014. 11. Mr. Gupta also vehemently urged that the petitioner is a lessee only. As per Act, owner has to take all steps but unfortunately in the present case the owner being the lessor has not taken any step and even the lessor has not been impleaded as party though order was passed by Hon’ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta in W.P. No.7997 (W) of 2003. 12. Mr. Gupta further contended that there is a provision for statutory appeal under Section 33 and without exhausting such remedy the petitioner straightway filled the writ petition which is not maintainable. 13. Mr. Gupta further contended that by this Act in the year 1976 ULCRA fixes ceiling. Since the land of the petitioner falls under the said Ceiling Act therefore the physical enquiry was held in presence of the representative of the petitioner on 27th January, 2014 as has been directed by the order of the appellate authority dated 10th May, 2013. Further Mr. Since the land of the petitioner falls under the said Ceiling Act therefore the physical enquiry was held in presence of the representative of the petitioner on 27th January, 2014 as has been directed by the order of the appellate authority dated 10th May, 2013. Further Mr. Gupta contended that in terms of the appellate authority the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and they availed the same and draft statement was also allowed to be inspected by the representatives of the petitioner and they have also availed that opportunity. Ultimately it was found that the petitioner possesses excess vacant land and the petitioner availed all opportunities before preparing the final statement therefore, at this stage petitioner should not have any grievances against the final statement. 14. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and after perusing the records I find that after the spot enquiry held on 27th January, 2014 in presence of the petitioner’s engineer as per direction of the appellate authority, the petitioner made representation on 18th February, 2014 inter-alia indicating that the total retainable land would be 28827 sq. mt., accordingly there was no excess vacant land. But unfortunately without considering the petitioner’s representation dated 18th February, 2014 the competent authority on 14th march, 2014 considered the matter and fixed a date for hearing on 24th March, 2014 neither supplying copy of the enquiry report nor the copy of the draft statement. Accordingly on 25th march, 2014 final report was passed by the competent authority which was served upon the petitioner on 27th March, 2014, thereby holding that 10613.78 sq. mt. is the total retainable land of the petitioner and 4208.82 sq. mt. is the excess vacant land. But unfortunately at the time of passing the final statement on 25th March, 2014 the petitioner’s representation dated 18th February, 2014 whereby the petitioner indicated that there are some discrepancies in respect of the total retainable land but that was not considered. Thereafter, the final statement was issued by the competent authority, Kolkata which is in clear violation the principles of natural justice and is also patently contrary to the Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300A of the Constitution of India. 15. In my considered view before coming to the final statement the respondent authority was under obligation to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 18th February, 2014. 15. In my considered view before coming to the final statement the respondent authority was under obligation to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 18th February, 2014. Furthermore to comply with the principles of natural justice it was the duty of the respondent authority to supply draft statement as well as the enquiry report of the Officer dated 27th January, 2014/7th February, 2014 to the petitioner. Having not done so in my opinion impugned decisions, reports are not sustainable. 16. After considering the decisions Whirlpool Corporation (Supra), M/s. Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari (supra), Popcorn Entertainment And Another (supra), Mohd. Quaramuddin (Dead) by LRS (supra) etc. in my considered view alternative remedy is not a bar to file the writ petition. Therefore, in my opinion the enquiry report of the Additional Urban Land Ceiling Officer of the competent authority Kolkata dated 27th January, 2014/7th February, 2014 and the order of the competent authority dated 14th March, 2014, 24th March, 2014, 25th March, 2014 and 15th May, 2014 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. Accordingly, the report dated 27th January, 2014/7th February, 2014 passed by the Additional Urban Land Ceiling Officer, Kolkata and the order dated 14th March, 2014, 24th March, 2014, 25th March, 2014 and 15th May, 2014 passed by the competent authority Kolkata are hereby set aside and quashed. 18. Resultantly I direct the competent authority Kolkata to revisit the issue after supplying draft statement and the enquiry report of the concerned Officer to the petitioner and thereafter take fresh decision in respect of the final statement thereby giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative. Further, the concerned authority is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18th February, 2014 at the time of taking fresh decision. 19. Since a considerable period has already elapsed, therefore the entire exercise shall be completed within eight (8) weeks from the date of communication of this order. 20. With this direction, this writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs.