1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3217 OF 2004 Nargis J.Haradhvala & Anr. .. Petitioners. V/s Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Milind Sathe, Sr.Advocate with Ms.S.Vedpathak i/by M/s.Maneksha & Sethna for the Petitioners. Ms.S.M.Modle for the Respondents. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioners by this petition challenge the demand made by the Corporation by letter dated 15.4.2004 asking the petitioners to pay the amount of Rs.16,03,600/- as costs of the construction of D.P.Road. The petitioners submit that after receiving the order, the petitioners have made a representation to the Corporation dated 24.6.2004, a copy of which is at Exh. “I” to the petition, raising an objection to the competence of the Corporation to demand such an amount from the petitioners. By order dated 23.7.2004 passed in the Notice of Motion No.307/2004 in Writ Petition No.2367/2000 this Court had directed the Corporation to decide that representation. That representation has been rejected by the Corporation by order dated 4.8.2004, a copy of 2 which is at Exh. “K” to the petition. But that order does not disclose any reasons. The principle objection of the petitioners is about the competence of the Corporation to levy such charges as also as to the quantum of charges. 2. In our opinion, in view of the order dated 23.7.2004 referred to above, the Corporation was under an obligation to pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioners. What is further pertinent to be noted is that in this petition though the Corporation is served with the petition, it has chosen not to file any affidavit in reply. 3. Taking overall view of the matter, in our opinion, it will be appropriate to dispose of the petition by following order. ORDER “Order dated 4.8.2004, a copy of which is at Exhibit “K” to the petition, is set aside. The Corporation is directed to decide the representation dated 24.6.2004 submitted by the petitioners after granting the petitioners an opportunity of being heard by a reasoned order, in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.” (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)