This Court had an occasion to deal with a similar situation in Smt. Chennupati Swaroopa Rani Vs. Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada[1] , wherein this Court relied on Jampa Kutumba Lakshmi Vs. State of A.P., Rep. by Principal Secretary[2] to hold that endorsement was held unsustainable as no reasons, in support of such demand, were found. This Court also relied on S.Shakuntala Vs. Additional Commissioner, MCH[3] , to hold that, under sub-section (3) of Section 223 of the Act of 1955, the result of disposal of the complaint should be communicated and that disposal of complaint by the corporation is bound to contain a reasoned order as Section 282 of the Act of 1955 entitles the assessee to challenge the order in an appeal before a judge as defined under the Act of 1955. In the instant case, the endorsement is silent as to confirmation of the proposed enhancement. If the principle laid down in the judgments referred supra is applied to the present facts of the case, the endorsement dated 18-01-2008 issued by the respondent corporation is against the principles of natural justice. In the case on hand also, as the endorsement does not contain any reasons, one has to search for the reasons on the basis of the record of the respondent corporation regarding the endorsement made. The mandate of both the decisions, referred to above, therefore, compels this Court to set aside the impugned endorsement dated 18-01-2008 by allowing the appeal while remitting the matter back to the respondent corporation for due consideration of objections and pass appropriate reasoned order on the objections and communicate the same to the appellant.
