1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1889/2008 (Rajesh Madhukarrao Vindhurkar Vs. N.I.T. Nagpur) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. Lohiya, Adv. For the petitioner. Jr. to Mr. N.W. Sambre, Adv. For respondent. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : MAY 2, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the imposition of additional Regularization Charges in respect of the property in question, by the respondent. It is submitted that against the said demand notice, the petitioner had moved a detailed representation/ application before the Building Engineer, Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur, dated 4/2/2008. It is contended that the Building Engineer, Nagpur Improvement Trust, rejected the same vide 2 communication dated 29/2/2008, without giving any reason and, therefore, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Considered the contentions canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner. Perused the communication dated 29/2/2008. The said communication clearly mentions that it is necessary for the petitioner to pay the additional Regularization Charges on transfer of ownership, however, no specific reason or provision is mentioned therein. We want to express that while deciding the representations made by the parties, authorities must give reason which would demonstrate that the authorities have applied their mind. In the instant case, the Building Engineer of the Nagpur Improvement Trust has not given any reason for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the petition with a direction to the respondent to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 4/2/2008 afresh and pass a reasoned order 3 and communicate the same to the petitioner as early as possible and in any case, not beyond the period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Needless to mention that the communication dated 29/2/2008 shall not come in the way of consideration of the representation of petitioner dated 4/2/2008 afresh. JUDGE JUDGE RMP