JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. 2.Since common questions of law and facts arise in both the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3.The sole grievance of the petitioners is that the complaints filed by them against the Notices issued under section 163 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 have been dismissed as barred by law of limitation. The records apparently disclose, as submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, that the notices in relation to the fixation of rateable value were served at the address different than the address mentioned by the petitioners and not at the address of the petitioners. The petitioners came to know about the said notices of rateable value only on 22nd March, 2003 and 26th March, 2003 respectively, and they filed the complaints on 27th March, 2003. There is nothing on record to disclose that the respondents have disputed the fact that the said notices in relation to the fixation of rateable value were received by the petitioners only on 22nd March, 2003, and on 26th March, 2003 in Writ Petition Nos. 2410 of 2003 and 2411 of 2003 respectively, and they had no prior knowledge of the said notices or the decisions regarding fixation of rateable value. In the circumstances, the petitioners are justified in contending that the complaints filed by them are within the period of limitation as prescribed by the law. Hence, the impugned orders dismissing the complaints of the petitioners solely on the ground that the same were barred by law of limitation cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed and set aside. The impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the authority to deal with the complaints filed by the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of law and after hearing the petitioners. The rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs, in both the petitions. -----