( 1 ) BY this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of a notice dated 23. 3. 1992 (Annexure-4), issued by the Assistant Assessor and Collector MCD under Section 126 (l) (3) of the DMC Act, 1957 ( hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act for short) and the order of assessment dated 22. 2. 1995 (Annexure-6) made pursuant to the notice (Annexure-4 ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner owns a property bearing No. B- 61, Soami Nagar, New Delhi. It appears that the property was previously assessed at a rateable value of Rs. 4860. 00. The impugned notice (Annexure-4) was issued proposing a rateable value of Rs. 3,70,580. 00 for the years 1988-89 to 1991-92. The petitioner appears to have given a response to the notice submitting that the notice did not disclose how and why the rateable value was proposed to be enhanced and unless that was done, a revision of rateable value to the higher side was not permissible made. It was also stated that the premises were self-occupied by the petitioner for his personal residence and so also the revision of the rateable value to the higher side was not permissible. On 22. 2. 1995, Deputy Assessor and Collector passed the impugned order revising the rateable value to Rs. 3,70,580. 00 , as was proposed, w. e. f. 1. 4. 1988 inasmuch as the petitioner had defaulted in appearance before the assessing authority in spite of opportunities having been allowed for the purpose. It is submitted by the petitioner that the notice under Section 126 is liable to be struck down as it is violative of the mandatory requirements of the relevant provisions and the order of assessment is liable to be set aside as it does not state the reasons for revising the rateable value.

( 3 ) IT is pertinent to note that the response (Annexure-5) said to have been made by the petitioner to notice (Annexure-4) does not mention any date and the petition also does not state the date on which it might have been issued and delivered to the respondent.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the respondent the notice was valid as requisite reasons for revision of rateable value were stated therein. The petitioner was sent a number of call letters viz. dated 29. 12. 92, 30. 1. 93, 19. 12. 93, 21. 7. 94 and 23. 12. 94 which required petitioner s appearance before the assessing authority respectively on 13. 1. 93, 17. 2. 93, 13. 3. 93, 25. 7. 94 and 16. 1. 1995 but there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The assessing authority was left with no option to finalise the assessment at the proposed rateable value in accordance with rule 9 of the Assessment List Bye Laws 1959.

( 5 ) TWO questions arise for decision. Firstly, whether the notice under Section 126 was bad as it was vague and did not state the reasons or grounds for the proposed revision of rateable value, and secondly whether the order of assessment is bad as it does not state the reasons for revision of rateable value.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Savitri Devi vs MCD, 55 (1994) DLT391 wherein it has been held :-

"the opportunity given to the owner/occupier of the building must be meaningful and the printed form on the basis of which notice dated 5th March, 1993 and 13th January, 1993 are issued, do not conform to basic principles of natural justice. No details as to the additions or alterations etc were specified in the above show cause notice. In our view, it is some details of additions or alterations, fixtures and fittings etc are to be furnished to the occupier/owner and a copy of the inspection report on the basis of which it is proposed to increase the rateable value are also to be given. Unless the show cause notice gives particulars, one cannot expect the owner/occupier to give effective reply. "

( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on another Division Bench decision of this Court in Govt Servants Cooperative House Building Soci