ma?» @a f 32 / $EN€§§E gigwh IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No.4! 7’3 /2006 PETITIONER f’ Sagar Agrawal, Aged about 60 years, Son of late Gopiram Agrawal, Resident of Gandhiganj, Raigarh, Manager—Gopi Talldes, Raigarh, District—Raigarh (C.G.) . Q‘Q' :3,§ VERSUS RESPONDENTS ,/ 1. Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, Through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, District—Raigarh (C.G.) Property Tax Assessment Officer, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, District—Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE‘ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI, DIRECTIONS ANDIOR ANY OTHER WRIT Q Q HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W. P. No. 4129 of2006 Petitioner Sagar Agrawal Versus Respond€nts Municipal Corporatiqn & anothm‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTETUTION OF INDIA DB: Hon’ble Mr. I. M. Quddusi, & Hon’ble Mr. N. K. Agaxwal, JJ. Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate for thc patitioner. Shri B. D. Guru, Advocate for the respondents. O R D E R (oral; ( Passed on this 30th day of June, 2010 ) Per I. M. ()uddusi, J. 1. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearingfor the respondents. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 17.7.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Raigarh 1n Misc. Civil Appeal No. 5/2005, flled under Section 149 of the M.P./C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act, 1956’), which was tiled against the order dated 5.10.2005, passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. 8. In fact the Commissioner passed the order dated 5.10.2005 under Section 148 (3) of the Act, 1956. The Municipal Corporation made a demand from the year 1997 to 98 to 2003-04 for a sum of Rs. 2,71,590/— and from the year 2004—05 to 2005-06 for a sum of Rs. 40,634/—. Thus, the total demand of Rs. 3,12,224l— was directed. The petitioner was granted opportunity to show cause but the petitioner could not flle reply, rather he moved so many ’ i a El applications on one context to other. Ulfimately, the Commissioner passed the order on 5th October, 2005 to the above extent; 4. Learned Distn'ct Jmige, though dismigsed the appeal, as not maintainable but iinal order was passed. Therefore, we feel that as the petitioner could not submit his reply and due to that the iinal order has been passed, at least one opportunity should be given to the petitioner to explain the situation in reply to the show cause. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the District Judge, Raigarh as wen as the order dated 5. 10.2005, by the Commissioner and remit the matter to the passed Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh. 5. The petitioner shall submit his reply Within four weeks, Thereafter, the Commissioner shall decide the matter afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to die parties concerned. 6. The petition is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. Sdl- i \, M . . .5, , , LM. Quddusi r Sd/‘ ‘l‘ Agarwal ’ k \ ‘ Judge N.K. t Judge K L \ Thakm ‘3. ., ¥\n ‘ #F‘Uitv .ii' TAM-f: t k