5.Further it is contended that as per the proceedings of the first respondent dated 29.11.2016, the second respondent has to depute the task of fixing the rent to the revenue department. The manner in which the same was assigned to the appellant itself falls upon the Commissioner of the municipality who was serving at the relevant point of time. Further, the appellant having specifically measured the building which was in proper condition to be let out on tenancy, the question of issuing charge memo against the appellant does not arise. Further, it is contended that the price quoted in the notification was as per the portion which was possible to be let out for rent and the appellant being a Municipal Engineer, was concerned with the safety of the public who will use the building and therefore, he quoted the rent by specifically mentioning the portion which was fit for being given on tenancy. Further, it is submitted that for the mistake committed by the elected committee of the municipality and the mistake committed by the Commissioner of the Municipality, the appellant cannot be penalised.
