: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.240 OF 2009 Manish Estate Pvt.Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. Municipal Corpn.of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Vineet Naik with Mr.G. Mohanty i/b Mohanty & Associates for the Petitioner. Ms.Trupti Puranik for the Respondents - B.M.C. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 16TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. Rule. By consent the Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The Petitioner has challenged an order passed by Respondent No.4, Investing Officer, Assessment and Collection Department of Respondent No.1 fixing a rateable value. 3. Earlier the rateable value had been fixed in respect of the same property. The same was challenged by the Petitioner by filing Municipal Appeal No.177 of 2002. The Court of Small Causes disposed of that appeal with the following order :- "O R D E R : : 2 : 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. Impugned order passed by the respondents on 15.3.2001 is hereby set aside. 3. The matter is remanded back to the Investigating Officer of the respondents with direction to calculate rateable value on the basis of Profit Basis Method and consider the allowable deductions as given under head Step-2, clause (a) and (b) (i) to (vi) of page 570 of Theory and Practice of Valuation by Dr.Roshan H. Namavati and as referred in this judgment. 4. Investigating Officer is further directed to give opportunity to both the parties to produce the documents and to lead evidence to that effect. 5. Investigating Officer is further directed to fix rateable value by giving priority as early as possible to this proceeding in comparison to the other proceedings as the dispute is pending since 2002. 6. In these circumstances parties to bear their own cost of the present appeal. 7. Decree be drawn up accordingly." 4. The purport of the order suggests that the parties were entitled to lead evidence and not merely produce the documents. By a letter dated 1.4.2008,the Petitioner requested the Respondents to fix the hearing at the earliest. The impugned order however was passed without giving any reasons. It is difficult from the impugned order to even ascertain whether the documents furnished have been considered or not. Nor is it possible to consider that the order : 3 : was passed on the basis of the said judgment of the Small Causes Court dated 29.2.2008. 5. Normally I would not have been interfered in the matter of this nature as the Petitioner could have filed appeal against the impugned order. However that was done on an early occasion as stated above. The matter was remanded once. The order has not been passed even in accordance with the order remanding the matter. It is for this reason that the impugned order warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set-aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to decide the matter afresh after affording the Petitioner an opportunity as directed by the order dated 29.2.2008. The order shall be a reasoned order. 7. The Petitioner shall in the first instance appear before Respondent No.4 on 30.3.2009 at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter as directed by Respondent No.4. Needless to add that Respondent No.4 shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 30.6.2009.