BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) 1. A. II is allowed. Arguments heard. ( 2 ) THE short point for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the special notice issued by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, which is the first respondent herein, fulfills the requirements of natural justice and whether it is liable to be quashed. ( 3 ) A special notice was issued by the Assistant Revenue Ofticer, Corporation of the City of Bangalore dated 2-6-1981 to one K Shama Rao, who is reported to be dead long ago, inviting objections for the proposed enhancement of property tax in respect of premises no 1, Sradhanandabhavan Cross Road, visveswarapuram, Bangalore City. According to the notice, the annual value of the property in question for 1980-81 is Rs. 350/- under the existing assessment, whereas the annual value under the proposed assessment for 1981-82 is Rs. 1,350/ -. It is also seen that no reasons have been assigned though there is a column set out in the notice with the following words :- "reasons for variation. " this notice is purported to have been issued under Rule 9 Schedule III of Section 147 of the Karnataka Municipal corporations Act ('the Act' for short) which provides that : -"the rules and tables embodied in schedule III shall be read as part of this Chapter. "and, 'this Chapter' means Chapter X of the Act. According to Rule 9, whenever there has to be an increase in the assessment of any property otherwise than in consequence of a general enhancement of a rate at which the property tax is leviable between one general revision and another, the Commissioner of the corporation is under the statutory obligation to intimate by special notice the owner or occupier of such property, that a petition for revising the assessment will be considered if it reaches the corporation Office within thirty days after service of such notice. It is clear from rule 9 that the notice shall afford an opportunity to the owner or OCCUpier of the premises concerned to offer objections to any proposed enhancement of property tax. The column "reasons for variations" is intended to afford a guidance to the person likely to be affected in regard to the reasons on the basis of which enhancement has been proposed. The column "reasons for variations" is intended to afford a guidance to the person likely to be affected in regard to the reasons on the basis of which enhancement has been proposed. Unfortunately, in the circumstances of the case, no reasons whatever have been assigned by the corporation in the special notice issued though a specific column is meant only for the purpose. The column is left blank in other words, it could be said that the special notice, which is questioned in this writ petition, is silent in so far as the reasons are concerned. In effect, it is a 'non speaking special notice', which would mean, a special notice devoid of reasons. A silent notice is an indication of a silent order. The presumption is that where there is a silent order, there are no reasons to be given and if no reasons are given, it would atfect the rights of the owner or the occupier as the case may be because, ultimately the burden of payment of tax is on them when enhancement is effected. Therefore, where the right of the occupier or the owner as the case may be is likely to be affected by the proposed enhancement, it is mandatory that reasons should be assigned for the propcsed variation, so as to enable the occupier or the owner to register their objedions in regard to the proposed enhancement of the property tax It will not be possible for the occupier or the owner of the property to make up his mind for resisting the enhancement unless the reasons are made known. It would be more appropriate to say that in the instant case, the petitioner has a "right to know" as the occupier of the property, though not as the owner of the property, and this right cannot be denied by the Corporation. I therefore hold that the special notice dated 2-6 1981 under Annexure 'd' is violative of principles of natural justice. ( 4 ) FOR the reasons stated above. I allow this writ petition and quash the impugned notice. It is however made clear that it is open to the competent authority of the Corporation to issue a fresh notice giving reasons in support of the proposed enhancement of property tax. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of. Writ Petition Allowed. --- *** --- .