Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are owners of buildings within the City Corporation of Cochin. The property tax assessments on quinquennial revision in 1986 by the Corporation are under challenge in these writ petitions. 2. According to the petitioners the assessments are arbitrary, unfair and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is not necessary to narrate the detailed facts in each case. The common feature in all these cases is that the impugned order of assessment in the printed proforma is a non-speaking one, without giving any reasons for the enhancement of the tax or indicating the mode of determination of the annual rental value of the building. 3. The provision for the levy and the procedure for the assessment of property tax under the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 are contained in S.101,102 and Schedule.2 Part.2 of the Act. Under the scheme of the Act and the Taxation Rules thereunder in revising the assessment the authority has to determine the tax on the basis of the annual rental value of the building after giving the party concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The authority in determining the annual value of the building is exercising a quasi judicial function and is therefore bound to comply with the principles of natural justice. The assessment should be reasonable and objective based on relevant materials. The revised order of assessment being an appealable one shall be supported by reasons. Where substantial objections have been raised by the party, the same have to be considered and the decision thereon and the reasons thereof have to be stated and the detailed particulars relating to the assessment in such cases are also to be recorded. 3. The guidelines for the purpose of determining the annual rental value of the building have been laid down in various decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. The criterion is the rent realisable by the Landlord and the annual value of the building cannot exceed the standard rent. (Vid Divan Daulat Rai Kapoor etc. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and another, AIR 1980 SC 541, Syed Asadullah Kazmi v. Additional District Judge, Allahabad, AIR 1981 SC 1724, George v. Muvattupuzha Municipality 1975 KLT 380, Achuthan v. Commissioner, 1983 KLT 671 and Thyagarajan v. Parur Municipality, 1986 KLT 214. (Vid Divan Daulat Rai Kapoor etc. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and another, AIR 1980 SC 541, Syed Asadullah Kazmi v. Additional District Judge, Allahabad, AIR 1981 SC 1724, George v. Muvattupuzha Municipality 1975 KLT 380, Achuthan v. Commissioner, 1983 KLT 671 and Thyagarajan v. Parur Municipality, 1986 KLT 214. Where the standard rent has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the annual rental value, the party concerned is entitled to know on what basis the computation has been made. When the party bad been called upon to file the objection, it is obligatory on the part of the assessing authority to make a speaking order containing all relevant particulars to enable the party to know the basis of the enhancement. Where the authority does not advert to a higher rate and fails to furnish the reasons for the conclusions, the order is opposed to the principles of natural justice and has to be struck down as unfair, arbitrary and illegal. The impugned orders in these cases suffer from all these infirmities and are, therefore, liable to be quashed. I am supported in this view by the decisions of Sivaraman Nair, J, in Thyagarajan v. Parur Municipality, 1986 KLT 214. Balakrishna Menon J. in 1984 KLT 466 and Paripoornan J, in OP No. 8770 of 1986. It had been contended on behalf of respondents that the petitioners have an alternate remedy by way of appeal and in such a case the discretionary powers under Art.226 cannot be invoked. It is conceded that the Corporation Council and the Standing Committee have been superseded by the Government and the powers of the Standing Committee have been now conferred on the Commissioner who happens to be the assessing authority. In such a case the remedy by way of appeal to the Standing Committee cannot be considered to be a speedy, efficacious alternate remedy. Further as held by Balakrishna Menon J. in Kunju v. Executive Officer, Thrikkakara Panchayat, 1984 KLT 466 an alternate remedy is not a bar against the issue of a writ to quash an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. I am therefore of the view that irrespective of the question whether the aggrieved parties have filed the statutory appeal or not the impugned orders of assessment are liable to be quashed. I am therefore of the view that irrespective of the question whether the aggrieved parties have filed the statutory appeal or not the impugned orders of assessment are liable to be quashed. It may be open to the respondent Corporation to take up the assessment in these cases and proceed to pass revised orders afresh in accordance with law after giving the parties a further opportunity of being heard. In the light of what has been thus stated, these Original Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders of assessments and the consequential demands are quashed without prejudice to the right of the respondents to make revised assessments afresh as indicated above and adjust the tax if any already collected. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.