TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions, own different properties situated in the gandhinagar area of the city of Bangalore. These properties are assessed for the purposes of property tax under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Special notices proposing to revise the annual rateable value of the properties were served upon the petitioners by the assistant revenue officer of the corporation. The notices called upon the petitioners, to either pay the amount of taxes determined therein or else approach the commissioner if they disputed their liability. The petitioners appealed to the deputy revenue oficer, who confirmed the demand and declined to interfere. A further appeal was then filed by the petitioners to the administrator exercising the powers of taxation appeal committee. The administrator interfered but only to the limited extent of reducing the annual rateable value of the properties by 5% of what was fixed by the assistant revenue officer. Aggrieved, the petitioners have come to this court in the present writ petitions. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for respondent-corporation raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions. He urged on the authority of the decision of this court in M/s. , hotel broadway complex v administrator, corporation of the city of Bangalore, that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy available to them by way of an appeal under Rule 20 of schedule iii of Karnataka municipal corporation rules in the light whereof the writ petitions were not maintainable. It is no doubt true that a remedy by way of an appeal is available under the Provisions of Rule 20, supra, which could and ought to have been exhausted by the petitioners, but the very fact that the petitioners have not done so is no reason for this court to dismiss these writ petitions six years after they were admitted. It is fairly well settled that where a writ petition is admitted for final hearing notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy of an appeal, the same cannot be dismissed years later on the ground that the petitioners ought to have exhausted the said remedy. Driving the petitioners to prefer appeals at this point of time does not appear to me to be either fair or otherwise feasible. I therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondents. Driving the petitioners to prefer appeals at this point of time does not appear to me to be either fair or otherwise feasible. I therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondents. ( 3 ) MR. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for petitioners argued that the notices in question, had been issued by the assistant revenue officer, who had no competence to do so tinder the rules. He referred to the Provisions of Rule 9 and argued that the same vested the authority to issue notices only with the commissioner. Alternatively, he urged that the notices issued by the assistant revenue officer do not disclose the basis on which the annual rateable value was sought to be revised. Relying upon the decisions of this court in khan sahib abdul shakoor v corporation of the city of Bangalore and century club v commissioner, corporation of the city of Bangalore and another, he contended that notices proposing to revise the annual rateable value of the properties must disclose the basis on which the authority proposes to make such revision. Such a disclosure is necessary in order to enable the owners of the properties to effectively avail opportunity to oppose the proposed valuation. No basis is however disclosed in the impugned notices issued to the petitioners in the instant case which according to the learned counsel was sufficient to vitiate the same. There is considerable merit in both these submissions. It is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent-corporation and in my opinion rightly so that the rules do not envisage revision of annual rateable value by any authority other than the commissioner. The rules also do not permit delegation of the authority vested in the commissioner either to the assistant revenue officer or any other officer of the corporation. It follows that the power of revision of annual rateable value must be exercised in the manner and by the officer authorised under the rules. The assistant revenue officer not being authorised under the rules, the notices issued by him were incompetent. The argument that looking to the number of notices that were issued every year, the commissioner cannot possibly sign each one of them has not impressed me. The assistant revenue officer not being authorised under the rules, the notices issued by him were incompetent. The argument that looking to the number of notices that were issued every year, the commissioner cannot possibly sign each one of them has not impressed me. If the law prescribes a particular mode for performance of a particular duty and identifies the authority by whom such duty must be performed, then, it is the authority so nominated alone can invoke and exercise the said power. There is no question of permitting any subordinate or other authority to exercise such powers, on the grounds of convenience or the magnitude of the work that may be involved. If it is impossible to the commissioner to himself apply his mind to the proposed revision, it is open to the Rule making authority to amend the Rule and make a provision either for delegation of such powers or conferment of the authority simultaneously on other officers. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the petitions, the rules have in fact been amended so as to empower the assistant revenue officer to issue notices and to revise the annual rateable value of the properties. That being so, it is difficult to sustain the notices issued to the petitioners as it is not disputed that the said notices were not issued by the commissioner and were based on an independent exercise undertaken by the assistant revenue officer. ( 4 ) THAT apart, it is fairly well settled by the two decisions of this court referred to earlier that the notices proposing to revise the annual rateable value must disclose the basis on which the revision is proposed. That is necessary because, in the absence of any such disclosure, the opportunity of being heard which the rules provide for the owner cannot be effectively availed. In the instant case, the notices in question, do not indicate the basis on which the revision was proposed. All that is stated is that the annual rateable value of the properties has been increased from the old figure to the new figures mentioned therein, without indicating the reasons for such revision or the basis thereof. In the circumstances, therefore, the notices would be liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) IN the result, the petitions succeed and are here by allowed. In the circumstances, therefore, the notices would be liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) IN the result, the petitions succeed and are here by allowed. The impugned orders passed by the administrator as also the proceedings initiated by the assistant revenue officer including the notices proposing to increase the annual rateable value of the properties of the petitioners are hereby quashed. It shall however be open to the competent authority under the rules to issue fresh notices in accordance with the law and pass fresh orders, if so warranted. No costs. --- *** --- .