JUDGMENT : This is the second round of litigation against the annual valuation fixed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with effect from Third Quarter 2007-2008 in relation to the premise no. 6, Prafulla Sarkar Street, Kolkata – 700 001. Prior to the instant Writ Petition, another Writ Petition being W.P. 462 of 2009 was filed before this Court challenging the consolidated rate bill on various grounds including that the assessment order passed by the hearing officer deciding the objection was never served on the petitioner, which is one of the statutory conditions provided under Section 188(3) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. 2. The Hon’ble Single Bench, while disposing of the said Writ Petition on 2nd April, 2015 observed that the bills annexed to the Writ Petition having raised without service of the copy of the order passed by the hearing officer is illegal and bad and therefore set aside. It was further observed that the said order shall not prevent the Corporation Authorities from raising bills for realization of the property tax on the Writ Petition in accordance with law. 3. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Intra-Court Appeal being APO 198 of 2015. The Hon’ble Division Bench modified the order agreeing with the decision of the Hon’ble Single Bench whereby and whereunder the bills annexed to the Writ Petition were set aside and the subsequent bills raised on the basis of the purported assessment order was held to be uninterfered with. The Hon’ble Division Bench observed that if the bills annexed to the Writ Petition were found to be invalid because of non-service of the assessment order by the Corporation the subsequent bills based upon the same could not be held valid. The Division Bench set aside all subsequent bills, which were either annexed to the Writ Petition or subsequently raised upon the petitioner without touching the veracity, legality and validity of the assessment order. However, a leave was granted to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order in accordance with law as the subject matter of the writ was restricted on those bills without serving the copy of the assessment order. 4. Pursuant to such leave, the present Writ Petition is filed challenging the assessment order on various grounds including the ground that it lacks reasons. 5. Mr. 4. Pursuant to such leave, the present Writ Petition is filed challenging the assessment order on various grounds including the ground that it lacks reasons. 5. Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate, appearing for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the impugned order of assessment is lacking reasons while accepting the proposed valuation of the Chief Manager (Revenue). According to him, the determination of objection by the hearing officer is not a mere formality but requires conscious application of mind to be reflected in providing reasons. He vehemently submitted that the annual valuation of a property was increased to an astronomical amount without disclosing the factors/materials available with the authority. He, thus, relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in case of Paresh R. Kampani Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 2 CLJ 262 and a Division Bench judgment in case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vs. Paresh R. Kampani & Ors. reported in (1998) 2 CLJ 87. Mr. Mitra further submitted that the notice of hearing served upon the petitioner reflected the ground for revision of annual valuation and therefore the authority should restrict its determination on the said ground and should not travel beyond it. He, thus submits that fixation of annual valuation on the ground other than mentioned in the hearing of notice is liable to be set aside and places reliance upon an unreported judgment of this Court rendered in case of Gopal Ji Shaw & Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. (W.P. 791 of 2013 decided on 25.01.2017). 6. On the other hand, Mr. Alok Kr. Ghosh, learned Counsel, appearing for the Corporation submits that the hearing officer recorded the reasons for revision of the annual valuation in the preceeding order and therefore the impugned order of assessment must be read conjointly with it. He, thus submits that the conjoint reading of order dated 09.03.2009 and 06.04.2009 passed by the hearing officer would reveal the reasons for acceptance of the proposed valuation arrived by the Chief Manager (Revenue) and therefore the impugned order cannot be said to be lacking material particulars. According to him, the judgment rendered in Paresh R. Kampani (Supra) was noticed by the another Co-ordinate Bench in case of Tarapada Ghorai Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. According to him, the judgment rendered in Paresh R. Kampani (Supra) was noticed by the another Co-ordinate Bench in case of Tarapada Ghorai Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported n (2001) 1 CHN 318 and held that whether the reasons are proper or not should not be decided by the Writ Court if the remedy by way of an appeal is provided in the statute. He further submits that the petitioner could not produce any document against the proposed valuation and therefore did not discharge his initial onus cast upon it under Section 174 of the Act and thus the hearing officer did not err in accepting the proposed valuation determined by the assessing officer and placed reliance upon a Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Kapoor and Company Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2002) 2 CHN 377 . He thus says that the assessment order of the hearing officer is amenable to be challenged before the Tribunal and the instant Writ Petition should be dismissed. In addition to the same, it is further submitted that though the leave was granted by the Division Bench to challenge the assessment order but such challenge must be made in accordance with law, which does not confer any right on the petitioner to challenge the said order by filing a fresh Writ Petition. 7. On the conspectus of the aforesaid submissions advanced by the respective parties, the points which emerged for consideration is whether the assessment order passed by the hearing officer contains the reasons or is bereft of reasons and whether Writ Court is competent to entertain the Writ Petition in spite of an alternative remedy available to the aggrieved person under the statute. 8. Before proceeding to deal with the first point, this Court feels that it would be apposite to reproduce the impugned order of assessment passed by the hearing officer, which runs thus:- “AR appears. Heard him. He states that at the time of amalgamation no change of rate could be effected. AAC of the corporation states that this assessment has been done as per statement a plan submitted by the owner of the premises. New assessment has been done as per present rate. The present proposed valuation has been approved by the Chief Manager (Revenue). It appears reasonable valuation to me. Hence the proposed valuation of Rs. AAC of the corporation states that this assessment has been done as per statement a plan submitted by the owner of the premises. New assessment has been done as per present rate. The present proposed valuation has been approved by the Chief Manager (Revenue). It appears reasonable valuation to me. Hence the proposed valuation of Rs. 20,71,990/- is confirmed. Fully Non-Residential. From H.O. IV.” 9. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of premise no. 6, Prafulla Sarkar Street, Kolkata – 700 001, which is used for the purpose of housing different offices of the petitioner company as well as its printing press. The old structure constructed sometimes in the year of 1966 is being repaired and renovated from time to time and the Corporation assessed the annual valuation and it is not in dispute that the annual valuation of the said premise was revised at Rs. 1,84,500/- for the period commencing from Second Quarter 2003-2004. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner company purchased another premise being premise no. 4, Meredith Street, Kolkata – 700 001, which is adjacent to the premise no. 6, Prafulla Sarkar Street on 14th October, 2004. An application was made for mutation of a name of the petitioner company in respect of the purchased premises with further prayer for amalgamation thereof with the existing premise no. 6, Prafulla Sarkar Street, Kolkata – 700 001. The Corporation allowed the said application by mutating the name of the petitioner company and further allowed the amalgamation of the two premises. The order dated 09.03.2004 passed by the hearing officer recorded the factum of such amalgamation. It is further recorded that no document in support of the contention that no changes in any structure has taken place is produced by the petitioner company and the matter was adjourned to next date directing the petitioner company to produce the relevant documents in support thereof. 10. It would be relevant to notice in this regard that the hearing notice issued to the petitioner for premise no. 6, Prafulla Sarkar Street, Kolkata – 700 001 proposing to revise the annual valuation at Rs. 20,71,990/- was passed on the ground “iib”, which would be evident from the information attached thereto that such proposed valuation is due to increase in estimated annual rent on account of rise of rent since last valuation. 6, Prafulla Sarkar Street, Kolkata – 700 001 proposing to revise the annual valuation at Rs. 20,71,990/- was passed on the ground “iib”, which would be evident from the information attached thereto that such proposed valuation is due to increase in estimated annual rent on account of rise of rent since last valuation. The order dated 09.03.2004 further recorded the concession of the petitioner company on the annual valuation assessed for the year 2003-2004. It is, therefore, apparent from above that the annual valuation for the assessment year 2003-2004 was accepted by the petitioner company but the dispute was raised on the annual valuation proposed from Third Quarter 2007-2008. The conjoined reading of both the orders visa-a-vis 09.03.2009 and 06.04.2009 leaves no manner of doubt in my mind that the hearing officer proceeded to determine the annual valuation on the ground other than the ground shown in the hearing notice. For better appreciation of the respective submissions the ground “iib” annexed to the hearing notice are quoted as below:- “Increase in estimated annual rent (less statutory allowance for repairs) on account of (a) redevelopment, addition, alteration or improvement, (b) rise of rent since last valuation, (c) change of the nature of use.” 11. There is no symmetry between the order dated 09.03.2009 and 06.04.2009 as in later case the hearing officer recorded the submissions advanced by the respective parties and surreptitiously jumped to the conclusion that the present proposed valuation has been done as per the present rate and is therefore approved. There is no finding recorded on the present rate and the manner in which the same has been arrived. The Co-ordinate Bench in case of Paresh R. Kampani (Supra) was dealing with the identical matter held that the hearing officer must record the reasons in arriving at the reasonable rent and if such findings are not recorded in the order, such order is a non-speaking order and therefore cannot be sustained in these words:- “3. In my view this is not at all a reasoned order. No reason has been given by the Hearing Officer as to why the reasonable rent could be fixed at Rs. 1,000/-. The writ petitioner filed an objection which is Annexure-B to the writ petition at page 31. Several objections were raised in the same. In my view this is not at all a reasoned order. No reason has been given by the Hearing Officer as to why the reasonable rent could be fixed at Rs. 1,000/-. The writ petitioner filed an objection which is Annexure-B to the writ petition at page 31. Several objections were raised in the same. From the order indicated above it does not appear that the Hearing Officer while coming to such conclusion has at all applied his mind. In that view of the matter I set aside the order of valuation which is Annexure-G to the writ petition and direct the Hearing Officer to decide the same afresh in accordance with law within four months from the date of communication of this order after giving hearing to the writ petitioner and other parties, if there be any, and after passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. 4. I am not unmindful of the fact that a provision of appeal has been provided under Section 189 of the CMC Act, 1980 against an order of valuation made under Section 188 of the CMC Act, 1980. A point may be raised that in view of such alternative remedy available to the writ petitioner the writ petition cannot be entertained. It is now well settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court that when an authority passes any order without application of mind and such order is passed without giving any reasons the Writ Court is entitled to entertain the writ application without directing the writ petitioner to avail the alternative remedy by way of appeal.” 12. The judgment in the above report was challenged before the Division Bench in case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vs. Paresh R. Kampani & Ors. reported in (1998) 2 CLJ 87 and was affirmed in these words:- “4. The learned Trial Judge, in our opinion, has rightly held that the said order is not a reasoned order. The Hearing Officer while disposing of the objection filed by an assessee is statutorily obliged to pass a reasoned order. It is now well settled principles of law that assignment of reason is also one of the limbs of principles of natural Justice and an unreasoned order is nullity particularly when an appeal lies therefrom. The Hearing Officer while disposing of the objection filed by an assessee is statutorily obliged to pass a reasoned order. It is now well settled principles of law that assignment of reason is also one of the limbs of principles of natural Justice and an unreasoned order is nullity particularly when an appeal lies therefrom. When an unreasoned order is passed, even the Appeal Court would feel great difficulty in considering the same in its proper perspective.” 13. The judgment rendered in case of Tarapada Ghorai (Supra) cannot be of any assistance to the Corporation as the same is distinguishable on facts. The Co-ordinate Bench in the said report compared the order challenged therein with the order being the subject matter in case of Paresh R. Kampani and held that the said order is not bereft of any reasons. It would be relevant to quote the observations recorded in paragraph 6 thereof which runs thus:- “6. A comparative study shows that in this case certain reason has since been given as to how the valuation has been arrived at. Therefore, there being some reason it cannot be said that there was no reason at all or that the order is not a speaking one. Be that as it may, a hearing officer is not supposed to write a detail judgment but he has to indicate is mind as to why he has arrived at a particular conclusion. While considering the same when there is an adequate alternative remedy it is not for this court to enter into the justification of the reasons given. The reason may be baseless but still then reasons having been given the order can not be said to be without any reason. In case the reasons are not justified the same can be assailed in the appeal and can be gone into by the appellate authority and in the appeal the appellant has a right to assail the said reasons as baseless. When there is an adequate alternative remedy available this Court is not supposed to go into the question of determining the issues on facts as to the justification for the reasons given or the materials on which such reasons are based.” 14. When there is an adequate alternative remedy available this Court is not supposed to go into the question of determining the issues on facts as to the justification for the reasons given or the materials on which such reasons are based.” 14. Even in case of Tarapada Ghorai (Supra) the Co-ordinate Bench did not take a dissenting view that the requirement of providing reasons in determining the objection is not necessary but accepted the view rendered in Paresh R. Kampani that the order determining the annual valuation must contain reasons. It is no doubt true that there is a distinction between a valid reasons and no reasons at all. In former case, if the statute provides a remedy by way of an appeal the validity, sanctity and legality of the reasons can be assailed therein but it would be a different case when the order is impinged on the doctrine of non-speaking order. There is no hesitation in my mind that the impugned order of assessment is a non-speaking order and no independent findings are recorded for approving the proposed valuation determined by the Chief Manager (Revenue). The importance of reasons in decision making process has been succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 as:- “15. It needs no emphasis that when a court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union observed: (All ER p. 1154h) “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.” In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.” Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. But as noted above, the proceedings commenced in 1981. The employee was placed under suspension from 1983 to 1988 and has superannuated in 2002. Acquittal in the criminal case is not determinative of the commission of misconduct or otherwise, and it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding acquittal in the criminal case. It per se would not entitle the employee to claim immunity from the proceedings. At the most the factum of acquittal may be a circumstance to be considered while awarding punishment. It would depend upon the facts of each case and even that cannot have universal application.” 15. It is manifest from the aforesaid decision that an affected party has the right to know the reasons why the decision has gone against him. The aforesaid aspect has also been imbibed within the four corners of the principle of natural justice. Every action must be informed by reasons as the decision uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary. It would help the higher authority to examine the state of mind with which the decision has been taken correctly and within the legal parameters. 16. Since the first point has been found in favour of the Writ Petitioner that the impugned order is bereft of reasons, there is no quarrel to the proposition that the Writ Court is competent to set aside such order despite the existence of an alternative remedy provided under the statute. The support can also be lent to the decision rendered in Tarapada Ghorai (Supra) wherein the Co-ordinate Bench held that if the decision contains reasons, the legality thereof should not be judged by the Writ Court if there exists an adequate alternative remedy under the Act. The support can also be lent to the decision rendered in Tarapada Ghorai (Supra) wherein the Co-ordinate Bench held that if the decision contains reasons, the legality thereof should not be judged by the Writ Court if there exists an adequate alternative remedy under the Act. It thus follows that the order without reasons can be challenged in a Writ Petition and may be interfered with. Furthermore, mere existence of an alternative remedy does not act as a deterrent to the Writ Court in entertaining the Writ Petition. It is mere a rule of discretion than of compulsion. 17. In view of the findings recorded herein above, the plea of onus becomes academic and it would be a futile exercise to deal with the judgment relied upon by the Corporation rendered in case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Kapoor and Company Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). 18. This Court, therefore, finds that the impugned order dated 06.04.2009 cannot withstand on the anvil of speaking order and is hereby set aside. 19. The matter is remitted back to the hearing officer to consider the objection afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Corporation Authorities and dispose of the same within six weeks from date of the communication of this order by recording reasons. 20. The Writ Petition is thus disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.