Alternative remedy and municipal tax assessment procedure: writ jurisdiction remained, but the assessment list failed for lack of lawful notice and delegation.

Availability of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and interference is warranted only if that discretion is exercised arbitrarily; the High Court's decision to entertain the writ was therefore upheld. In municipal taxation, assessment must strictly follow the statutory procedure and the notice basis for levy; where the rate-fixing resolution was revoked, the published list no longer reflected a lawful basis of assessment, and fresh notice and opportunity to object were required. The Council's objection-hearing function could not validly be delegated to a Sub-Committee under the enabling provision, so the authenticated assessment list was not lawfully prepared and could not be saved by amendment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy; (ii) whether the assessment list was validly prepared and whether the Municipal Council could invoke the power of amendment after the list was authenticated, including the validity of delegation to the Sub-Committee.

Issue (i): whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The existence of an appeal or other remedy does not oust jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The exercise of writ jurisdiction remains discretionary, and interference is justified only where that discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. On the record, no such arbitrariness was established.

Conclusion: The High Court was entitled to entertain the writ petition, and no ground was made out for interference with that discretionary order.

Issue (ii): whether the assessment list was validly prepared and whether the Municipal Council could invoke the power of amendment after the list was authenticated, including the validity of delegation to the Sub-Committee.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the assessment list to contain correct particulars as to valuation, rate and amount of tax, and the procedure for assessment had to be strictly followed because no tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Since the resolution fixing the rate on the basis of which the list was published had been revoked, the published list no longer matched the lawful basis of assessment, and the assessees had not been given the notice and opportunity contemplated by the Act for objections to the revised basis. The Court also held that the Council's power to hear objections could not validly be delegated to a Sub-Committee in the manner adopted, as Section 78 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 did not authorise delegation to such a body. In these circumstances, the authenticated list was not prepared according to law, and the power of amendment under Section 141(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 was unavailable.

Conclusion: The assessment list was invalid, and the Municipal Council could not rely on Section 141(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 to sustain it.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the impugned assessment process did not comply with the statutory requirements governing municipal taxation, and the authenticated list could not be upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In tax matters, assessment and levy must strictly conform to the statutory procedure and the basis on which notice is issued; a materially altered assessment cannot be sustained without fresh lawful notice and opportunity, and statutory functions cannot be delegated beyond the authority conferred by the enabling provision.

---