IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 5749 of 2008 Between: K.V.Lakshmana Rao S/o.K.V.Muni Ratnam R/o.96 Prakasam Road,Tirupathi,Chittoor Dist ..... PETITIONER AND Municipal Corporation Tirupathi Chittoor Dist rep.by its Commissioner .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus set aside the orders passed in Revision petition No.226/7881/A-6 dt.22-1-2008 confirming the Half Yearly property Tax for the premises 14-2-132-B1,T.P Area Tirupathi with Assessment No.101202620(old 31237) and consequently reassess the tax after considering the objections field on 14-9-2007 and 12-10-2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following: ORDER (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao): Heard Smt. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.I. Newton, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Tirupathi and at their request, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 2) This Writ Petition is filed seeking to set aside the orders passed by the respondent in revision Petition No.226/7881/A-6 on 22.01.2008, confirming the half yearly property tax for the petitioner’s premises bearing No.14-2-132-B1, T.P. Area, Tirupathi and consequently to reassess the tax after considering the objections of the petitioner filed on 14.09.2007 and 12.10.2007. 3) The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing No.12-2-132-B1, situated in the lane adjacent to T.P. Area Main Road, Tirupathi. As per the old assessment, he has been paying Rs.434/- towards half yearly municipal tax for the said property and the taxes have been paid up to 31.03.2007. Later, the said property was reassessed by the respondent in July, 2007 by fixing the tax at Rs.7,349/- assessed as per the plinth area of 144.9 and a notice was issued on 06.09.2007 fixing the hearing on 11.09.2007, against which he filed objections. But, without considering his objections, another special notice was issued on 26.09.2007 increasing the half yearly tax to Rs.12,125/- with effect from 01.10.2007. A draft notification was issued on 30.08.2007 pertaining to the general revision of tax with effect from 01.10.2007. He filed objections on 14.09.2007 against the draft notification also. Curiously, without considering his objections, the notification was issued on 16.09.2007, simply reiterating the draft notification and nothing has been mentioned about the objections filed by the petitioner. Against the special notice dated 26.09.2007, he filed the revision before the respondent. The respondent rejected the said revision, through the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that without referring to any of the contentions raised by him and also without considering his objections, the respondent rejected the revision through the impugned order, dated 22.01.2008, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 5) On a perusal of the impugned order dated 22.01.2008, it is clear that no reasons are assigned in it as to the objections raised by the petitioner. Admittedly, no enquiry has also been conducted and it also appears that the order impugned has been passed in a routine manner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the matter requires reconsideration and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order in Revision Petition No.226/7881/A6, dated 22.01.2008 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration and the respondent shall dispose of the revision on merits, after giving opportunity to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay the admitted tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ C.Y. SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 24.03.2008 Isn ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 2. 2 CCs to 3. 2 CD copies