IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.10293 of 2009 Date of Decision : 7.9.2010 Municipal Council Karnal ....Petitioner Versus Janak Raj and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. Respondent No.1 was assessed to house-tax and a demand was raised upon him by virtue of Annexure P-1. But the said respondent failed to deposit the tax and proceedings under Section 95 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 for recovery of the same were initiated against him. By virtue of the impugned order the petition moved by the petitioner under Section 95 of the Act has been dismissed. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the impugned order, I am of the opinion that there is merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The C.W.P.No.10293 of 2009 -2- impugned order certainly does not give any reason much less reasons which can stand the test of judicial scrutiny. The impugned order is thus set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Special Judicial Magistrate, Karnal to consider the petition moved by the petitioner afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties. The writ petition stands allowed. 7.9.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss