Anil Dev Singh ( 1 ) RULE D. B.- The Writ Petition is preferred on thebasis of an exemption certificate dated 23/10/1988 and contending that thenotice dated 13/01/1993 proposing to enhance the rateable value from Rs. 34,480. 00 to Rs. 6 lakhs is illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the exemptioncertificate. After receiving the notice, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 30/04/1994 informing the respondent that they have not made any alteration ordeviation or addition or modification and have not made any fresh construction, after 23. 10. 88. ( 2 ) WHEN the matter came up before this Court on 18/03/1994, it was conceded by Counsel for the respondents that it was wrongly stated in thecounter affidavit of the MCD that additional construction were carried out inthe building in question. The learned Judges pointed out that they were unableto appreciate as to how the affidavit was filed without verification of the correctfacts. They however, directed the MCD to look into the matter and submit a reportin writing. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER a report has been submitted by the Assessor and Collector Mr. V. C. Chaturvedi dated 13/04/1994. After referring to the inspection reportdated 28/02/1992 and other acts he concluded in para 2. 25 that this wasa case in which there were additions/alterations and renovations in the buildingwhich had escaped assessment even when the 86-87 assessment was made. Inother words, he stated that even before the earlier assessment was made on 2 7/01/1988 there was an escapement of facts inassuch as the petitionerallegedly suppressed certain additions and alterations which were made already. ( 4 ) THE question arises as to whether the petitioner should not have areasonable opportunity in explaining his version of the facts and law before therateabie value is to be increased from Rs. 34,480. 00 to Rs. 6 lakhs. The petitioner casehas been and is also before us that no additions had been made subsequent to theprevious assessment of 1986-87 on the basis of which exemption certificate wasgranted on 23/10/1988. If the inspection report now finalised by Mr. Chaturvedi as stated above, docs not refer to any additions or alterations havingbeen made upto 26/10/1988, the question will arise as to whether theassessment of the years 1986-87 could be re-opened on the ground of escapedassessment. In this context, it is also necessary to bear in mind the provisions ofsection 126 (4) of the DMC Act. Chaturvedi as stated above, docs not refer to any additions or alterations havingbeen made upto 26/10/1988, the question will arise as to whether theassessment of the years 1986-87 could be re-opened on the ground of escapedassessment. In this context, it is also necessary to bear in mind the provisions ofsection 126 (4) of the DMC Act. ( 5 ) THE show-cause notice dated 31/03/1993 proposing to enhance therateable value from Rs. 34,800. 00to Rs. 6 lakhs docs not mention reasons or factsas to why the enhancement is necessary. Learned Counsel for the respondent hasalso placed before us the notice dated 5/03/1993 bearing No. 20389 by whichit was proposed to make an assessment for the years 1988-89,89-90, 90-91 and 91-92. Learned Counsel wanted to contend that the concerned notice which wasissued prior to the notice dated 13/01/1993 contains the necessaryparticulars and we asked Counsel let us know that details were shown there. Learned Counsel referred us to the following words which are in rubber stamp. They read as follows:- "increase in R. V. on account of additions, alterations, renovation, affixingof fixtures and fittings integral to the fabric structure. Increase in amount of rateable value after amendment in the DRC Actchanging valuation of standard rent from 8. 25/8. 625 to 10% and excludingproperties with the rent above Rs. 3,500. 00 per month" ( 6 ) THE above are all the details mentioned in the notice as to why the existingrateable value from Rs. 34,480. 00 increased to Rs. 6 lakhs and that too in the faceof an exemption order one what except more details to this notice also. ( 7 ) IN our view, the opportunity given to the owner/occupier of the buildingmust be meaningful and the printed form on the basis of which notice dated 5/03/1993 and 13/01/1993 are issued, do not conform to basic principlesof natural justice. No details as to the additions or alterations etc. were specifiedin the above show cause notice. In our view, it is some details of additions oralterations, fixtures and fittings etc. are to be furnished to the occupier/owner and acopy of the inspection report on the basis of which it is proposed to increasethe rateable value are also to be given. Unless the show cause notice givesparticulars, one cannot expect the owner/occupier to give effective reply. ( 8 ) IN these circumstances, we quash the notices dated 5/03/1993 and 13/01/1993. are to be furnished to the occupier/owner and acopy of the inspection report on the basis of which it is proposed to increasethe rateable value are also to be given. Unless the show cause notice givesparticulars, one cannot expect the owner/occupier to give effective reply. ( 8 ) IN these circumstances, we quash the notices dated 5/03/1993 and 13/01/1993. In the peculiar facts of this case, we direct the respondent toissue a supplementary show-cause notice giving all particulars mentioned above. After issuing supplementary notice, it will for the petitioner to submit anexplanation in regard thereto. Thereafter a hearing will be given to the partiesand the questions of law will be disposed of while passing a reasoned order. Writpetition is disposed of accordingly.