Writ jurisdiction and natural justice supported fresh consideration of an undecided municipal property-tax objection before coercive recovery.

A writ petition challenging a municipal property-tax demand was treated as maintainable despite the existence of a statutory appeal and pre-deposit requirement, because the grievance concerned non-compliance with the prescribed objection procedure and a possible breach of natural justice. The municipal scheme required objections to be entered, heard and decided by the Commissioner after affording an opportunity of hearing. As the objection remained undecided and no proper speaking order had been passed, the authority was directed to reconsider the matter afresh, allow time to produce supporting documents if necessary, and decide expeditiously. Coercive action on the earlier notices was stayed pending that decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of a statutory appellate remedy and a pre-deposit condition under the municipal law. (ii) Whether the municipal authority was required to decide the petitioners' objection to property tax demand in accordance with the prescribed procedure and pass a speaking order before taking coercive steps.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of a statutory appellate remedy and a pre-deposit condition under the municipal law.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy does not oust writ jurisdiction where the controversy is purely legal or where the case falls within recognised exceptions, including breach of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. On the facts presented, the petitioners complained that the demand was pursued without deciding the objection in the manner required by the statute.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held maintainable for consideration of the grievance despite the statutory remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the municipal authority was required to decide the petitioners' objection to property tax demand in accordance with the prescribed procedure and pass a speaking order before taking coercive steps.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required objections to be entered, noticed for hearing, and determined by the Commissioner after giving the objector an opportunity of hearing. The record indicated that the objection had remained undecided for a long period and no proper speaking order had been passed. The Court therefore directed the competent authority to consider the objection afresh, to afford reasonable time to produce supporting income-tax documents if required, and to decide the matter expeditiously.

Conclusion: The municipal authority was directed to decide the objection afresh in accordance with Section 148, and coercive action on the earlier notices was stayed until such adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was disposed of with directions for fresh consideration of the property-tax objection, while protecting the petitioners from coercive recovery pending a reasoned decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory objection against a fiscal demand has not been decided in the manner mandated by the governing provision, the writ court may intervene notwithstanding the existence of an appellate remedy and may require a speaking order after affording a fair opportunity of hearing.

---