ORDER 1. Special Leave granted. 2. Heard counsel for both the parties. 3. This appeal is preferred against an interlocutory order made by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 20-1-1994 confirming the ex parte interim order of stay. A few facts need to be stated. 4. Revision of property tax took place in Chandpur Municipality (in Bijnor District of Uttar Pradesh) in the year 1991-92. It was given effect to from 1-4-1991. Even before the revision took effect, a suit was filed challenging the said revision by certain residents of the Municipality on several grounds which need not be mentioned here. In that suit, a temporary injunction was asked for but declined by the court. 5. At about the same time, several residents of the Municipality complained to the Government about the alleged irregularities and the partial manner in which the revision took place. On the basis of the said complaint, a report was called for from the District Magistrate who in turn asked the SDM, Chandpur, to submit a report. SDM, Chandpur, submitted a report pointing out certain irregularities in the assessment and also stating that the allegations made in the complaint appear to be true. On the basis of the said report, a letter was addressed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of U.P. to the District Magistrate, Bijnor on 31-1-1992 stating : "I am directed to say that irregular and unfair tax assessments made at Chandpur Municipality must be quashed and arrangement for reassessment under Rules must be made. I am further directed to say in the case that necessary action against the officers/employees guilty in this case must be ensured under Rules and the action taken should be intimated to the Government as early as possible." The original letter is in Hindi. We have quoted the above from the translation furnished by the writ petitioner. Shri Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents, however, disputes the correctness of the translation. According to him, the words irregular and unfair in the above extract do not represent correct translation and that the words in Hindi are niyam virudh and pakshpat, which must be translated as illegal and partial. 6. In pursuance of this letter, the District Magistrate wrote to the Chairman of the Municipality not to give effect to the said version. According to him, the words irregular and unfair in the above extract do not represent correct translation and that the words in Hindi are niyam virudh and pakshpat, which must be translated as illegal and partial. 6. In pursuance of this letter, the District Magistrate wrote to the Chairman of the Municipality not to give effect to the said version. Thereupon, it appears, the Municipality made a representation against the said cancellation to the Commissioner, Municipality, which in turn appears to have been forwarded to the Government. On the basis of the representation, the Joint Secretary to the Government of U.P. wrote on 16-7-1992 to the Commissioner, Moradabad Division to the following effect : "With reference to your letter No. 915 XXI-154/91/MA dated 27-4-1992 on the above subject, I am directed to say that on reconsideration in the instant case it has been decided by the Government take keeping in view the financial position of the Municipality, collection of tax should not be deferred and the collection on the basis of assessment made earlier must be continued." 7. There is a controversy as to the meaning and purport of this letter. According to the Municipality, this letter permitted the Municipality to collect taxes in accordance with the 1991 revised assessment whereas according to the appellants this letter merely permitted the Municipality to continue to collect taxes in accordance with the assessment prevailing prior to 1-4-1991. 8. Coming back to the proceedings in the civil court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the District Court against the order of the trial court dismissing the application for temporary injunction. The said appeal was also dismissed. 9. It appears that a good number of appeals were filed by several owners of the houses under Section 150 of the Act which are now pending before the CJM, Bijnor. 10. At this stage, certain persons (including one of the plaintiffs in the suit referred to above) formed an association of house-owners of that Municipality and filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court being Writ Petition No. 15935 of 1993. The main grievance in the writ petition is that the Government having validly cancelled the revision assessment by its order dated 31-1-1992, acted illegally in reviewing the said order through its proceedings dated 16-7-1992. The petitioner prayed that the 1991 revision should not be given effect to. The main grievance in the writ petition is that the Government having validly cancelled the revision assessment by its order dated 31-1-1992, acted illegally in reviewing the said order through its proceedings dated 16-7-1992. The petitioner prayed that the 1991 revision should not be given effect to. It is in this writ petition that initially an interim order of stay was made and subsequently confirmed. 11. Section 137 of the U.P. Municipalities Act confers upon the Government a power to modify or rectify the assessment made by a Municipality. It reads as follows : "137. Power of State Government to remedy or abolish tax. - (1) Whenever it appears, on complaint made or otherwise, to the State Government that the levy of any tax is contrary to the public interest or that any tax is unfair in its incidence the State Government may, after considering the explaining of the Board or the Municipality concerned, by order require such Board to take measures, within a time to be specified in the order, for the removal of any defect which it considers to exist in tax or in the method of assessing or collecting the tax. (2) Upon the failure or inability of the Board to comply, to the satisfaction of the State Government with an order made under sub-section (1), the State Government may by notification suspended the levy of the tax or of any portion thereof until the defect is removed, or may abolish or reduce the tax." In this case, it cannot be disputed that before cancelling the revision in its proceedings dated 31-1-1992 the explanation of the Municipality was not called for. It appears that the SDM was asked to make an inquiry by the District Magistrate and when the SDM went on inspection to Chandpur town, certain officers of the Municipality were also present. This, in our opinion, does not satisfy the aforesaid requirement of Section 137. Since this has not been shown, the said order of the Government cannot be given effect to. 12. Shri Singhvi raised a contention that the Municipality has not chosen to question the proceedings of the Government dated 31-1-1992 nor has it filed any writ petition quashing it. If so, learned counsel says, there is no occasion for setting aside the said order. We are not impressed by the said submission. 12. Shri Singhvi raised a contention that the Municipality has not chosen to question the proceedings of the Government dated 31-1-1992 nor has it filed any writ petition quashing it. If so, learned counsel says, there is no occasion for setting aside the said order. We are not impressed by the said submission. The proceedings dated 31-1-1992 are reviewed in the order dated 16-7-1992 and that is how the respondents understood it and proceeded to question it by filing Writ Petition No. 15935 of 1993, though it is now contended that the proceedings dated 16-7-1992 does not in any manner affect the proceedings dated 31-1-1992. In our opinion, both the said proceedings must go for the reason that both were passed without notice to and/or without having the affected party/parties, The proper course in our opinion is to remit the matter to the Government to dispose of afresh the representation made by the residents of Chandpur Municipality against the 1991 revision assessment of property and water taxes, according to law. Accordingly, both the orders dated 31-1-1992 an 16-7-1992 are set aside. The Government shall pass orders afresh in accordance with Section 137 on the said representation and in the light of the observations made herein. 13. The question then arises as to what should happen pending disposal of the matter before the Government. Shri Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents-house-owners submits that the revision of assessment is full of irregularities and illegalities and that such an assessment should not be allowed to be given effect to, earlier wholly or partially. He relies on certain portions of the report of the SDM in this behalf. On the other hand, Shri Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, says that in this Municipality, the previous revision had taken place in the year 1975-76 and that the impugned revision assessment took place after an interval of 15 years. He submits that in this interregnum of 15 years, a number of new houses have been constructed and there have been substantial additions and alterations to the existing buildings. The whole picture has undergone a change, says the counsel. He submits that in this interregnum of 15 years, a number of new houses have been constructed and there have been substantial additions and alterations to the existing buildings. The whole picture has undergone a change, says the counsel. He further submits that whereas the total tax according to the assessment made in 1975-76 was approximately Rs 1,23,000, the tax found due in accordance with the revision assessment of 1991 is about Rs Seven lakhs which cannot be said to be too steep or excessive, having regard to the interval between these two assessments and the increase in the number and extent of properties. Taking into consideration the several facts and circumstances of this case, we direct that pending disposal of the matter before the Government under Section 137 of the Act, the Municipality shall collect the house tax and water tax to an extent of 75% of the revised tax as per the revision assessment made in 1991, with effect from 1-4-1991. Further payment shall also be made at the same rate. This arrangement is subject to the final orders that may be passed by the Government. The Government shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. The Joint Secretary to the Urban Development Department to the Government of U.P. shall ensure that the representation of the residents aforementioned is disposed of by the Government at an early date. 14. In view of this order, the Writ Petition No. 15935 of 1993 filed in the High Court becomes infructuous and must be deemed to have been disposed of. Formal orders to that effect may be passed by the High Court accordingly. 15. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.