IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 20355 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 24.09.2008 Municipal Corporation, Patiala .... PETITIONER Versus Harinderpreet Singh and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) Municipal Corporation, Patiala, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the order dated 14.6.2005 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, whereby on appeal, filed by respondent No.1, the order dated 14.3.2005, passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala, has been set aside. We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the petition. CWP No. 20355 of 2006 -2- A perusal of the impugned order dated 14.6.2005 reveals that the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, has set aside the order dated 14.3.2005 on the ground that respondent No.1, owner of the property was not granted any opportunity to lead evidence before the Municipal Corporation, to establish that the annual rental value, assessed by the Municipal Corporation, Patiala, is excessive. We are of the opinion that if the order of the Commissioner was set aside on this ground, then after setting aside the order, the matter should have been remanded to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala, for providing opportunity to respondent No.1 to lead evidence in support of his objection, filed against the proposed assessment and then to decide matter on merit. Counsel for respondent No.1, on instructions from respondent No.1 who is present in Court, states that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the House Tax Sub Committee, for providing opportunity to respondent No.1 to lead evidence in support of the objection, filed by him to the proposed assessment and then, after hearing the parties, a fresh order will be passed, in accordance with law. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 14.6.2005, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the House Tax Sub Committee, Municipal Corporation, Patiala, who shall provide opportunity to respondent No.1 to lead evidence in support of the objection, filed by him to the proposed assessment and then, after hearing the parties, shall pass a CWP No. 20355 of 2006 -3- fresh order, in accordance with law. Respondent No.1 is directed to appear before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala, who will intimate him regarding the date of appearance before the House Tax Sub Committee. The petition stands allowed accordingly. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 24, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE