Division Bench should not interfere with single-judge order only because it has different opinion: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently had occasion to touch upon the need for division benches to exercise restraint before interfering with well-considered single-judge orders under challenge in intra-court appeals. [The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors v. Smt Anuradha Chaudhuri & Ors].An observation to this effect was made by Justice Arijit Banerjee in his concurring opinion in a case that ultimately saw the division bench headed by him upholding a single-judge's order. "... the order assailed before us is a well-considered one containing detailed reasons...We should keep in mind that while hearing an intra Court appeal, the Division Bench should not interfere with the order under appeal only because it may have a different opinion. If the view taken by the learned Single Judge is a plausible one, the order impugned ought not to be touched," Justice Banerjee opined..The case before the Bench comprising Justices Banerjee and Rai Chattopadhyay concerned a challenge to the enhancement of the valuation of certain property by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. A property owner had claimed that she was not heard before the property value was enhanced, thereby increasing her tax liabilities. .A single-judge of the High Court had earlier allowed the property owner's plea in the matter, agreeing that there had been a violation of natural justice principles by the Municipal Corporation. As such, the single-Judge had sent the matter back for fresh consideration by the competent authority..Aggrieved by the single-judge's decision, the Corporation preferred an intra-court appeal before the division bench. On Wednesday, the division bench dismissed the Corporation's appeal. .As set out in the lead opinion authored by Justice Chattopadhyay, the High Court rejected the Corporation's contention that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy in the matter barred the property owner from approaching the High Court for relief. .Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors, Justice Chattopadhyay pointed out,"...it is the trite law, that the provision of appeal, being available under the statute, shall not deter the aggrieved person to approach a court of equity, in case, in following the procedures under the law, the State Authority defies or fails to comply with the principles of natural justice as that though may not affect the procedural relief available but shall be defiant of the rule of law and prejudicial to the person’s interest.".The Court further found that there was no provision in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 which empowered the hearing officer of the Corporation to determine the value of the property without first hearing the property owner. "The question of coming into play of the principles of natural justice would only intervene at this very juncture and compliance with the principles of audi alteram partem would be inevitable. Determination of the property valuation in any manner other than by following the said principles would render the same as illegal, nullity, perverse and vexatious," the Court said. .The Corporation's appeal was thus dismissed, with the division bench concluding that the ex-parte value enhancement of the property in question by the Corporation suffered from gross illegality and non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. "Learned Single Judge is absolutely just and proper in finding the same in the impugned judgment which requires no interference to the same by this Court," the division bench held. .The Kolkata Municipal Corporation was represented by Advocates Aloke Kumar Ghosh, Gurudas Mitra, and S Panda. The respondents were represented by Advocates Rudraman Bhattacharyay, Piyali Sengupta, Amrita Panja Moulick, Satwaki Mukherjee, Subhangini Singh, Niharika Singh and Ashok Kumar Singh..[Read Judgment]