Property tax exemption rejected by the wrong cannot stand where a court required the Commissioner to decide the request.

The impugned rejection of property tax exemption under Section 101(E) could not stand because an earlier writ direction had specifically required the Commissioner of the Corporation of Chennai to decide the request after hearing the petitioner and passing a reasoned order on merits. An order passed instead by the Deputy Commissioner was contrary to that judicial mandate, and the power to delegate could not override the express direction. The matter was therefore sent back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits, with an opportunity of hearing, and no view was expressed on the exemption claim itself.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order rejecting exemption from property tax under Section 101(E) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, could be sustained when it was passed by the Deputy Commissioner despite an earlier direction requiring the Commissioner to decide the request.

Analysis: The Court noted that the earlier writ order had specifically directed the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, to consider the exemption request, hear the petitioner, and pass a reasoned order on merits. In that setting, the power to delegate could not override the express judicial direction. Since the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner instead of the Commissioner, the order was found to be contrary to the earlier mandate. The Court also clarified that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the exemption claim.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner for fresh decision on merits after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

---