The Commercial Credit Corporation (1943) Pvt. Ltd., Madras vs The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, and others

K. A. Swami, C. J.

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 2102/95 rejecting the writ petition. The petitioner has

sought for quashing the order bearing No. 20258 dated 9-11-1994 passed by the first respondent, enhancing the property tax for the year 1993-

94 and further intimating the petitioner/appellant that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment of property tax, he can deposit fifty percent of

the revised tax and go on appeal within 15 days from the date of the order. The learned single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition on

the ground that the order under challenge is appealable and the appeal lies to the Taxation Appellate Tribunal and even thereafter if the petitioner is

aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, further appeal is provides to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. Therefore, it is not a case in

which the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 220 of the Constitution is called for. Accordingly, the learned single Judge gave 15 days time from 14-

2-1995, i.e., from the date of the order, to the petitioner, to prefer an appeal. Instead of preferring an appeal to the Tribunal, the petitioner has

preferred this Writ Appeal. We see no reason to differ from the view expressed by the learned single Judge, as the Statute provides for a specific

remedy by way of appeal which is adequate and efficacious. We make it clear that the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is not

intended to by pass the statutory remedy. It is only in cases where the order passed is opposed to the principles of natural justice and violative of

fundamental rights, the writ petitions can be entertained in exceptional cases by passing the statutory remedy. This case cannot certainly be

classified as an exceptional case, because the property tax revision is done by the Corporation or by the Municipality, as the case may be, at a

stated interval. Sufficient protection is given to the aggrieved party, namely, the property owner. In the statutory appeal, the Tribunal is entitled to

go into the facts. In such circumstances, we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal Is rejected,

If the appeal is filed on or before 10-4-1995, the same shall be entertained and disposed of in accordance with law, without going into the question

of limitation.

Appeal dismissed.