Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Sri A.B. Prasad and the Officer, who had issued the notice, Sri K.K. Singh are present in the Court. 3. The present matter depicts a very sorry State of affairs and projects very unhealthy working conditions in the Patna Municipal Corporation because the vires of inaction, non-action and not understanding the law and orders of this Court is not only affecting the health of the Corporation but even public health is adversely affected and people are required to rush to this Court for proper remedies. 4. The petitioner after receiving a notice dated 10-1-1997 with respect to a demand of Rs. 32,044.42 came to this Court in CWJC No. 2111/1997. It was the case of the petitioner that the objections raised by him have not been decided and so long as the objections are not decided, the demand cannot be raised. On 11-3-1997 in the said writ Application the learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted that objections of the petitioner were pending, therefore, no effect shall be given to such a notice unless objections were finally disposed of. The High Court disposed of the Writ Application with a direction not to give effect to the demand notice unless objections are decided and fresh orders are passed in accordance with law. The order passed in the year 1997 in presence of the Counsel for the Corporation unfortunately could not wake up the Corporation authorities from their deep sleep. The petitioner now aggrieved by the notice dated 17-8-2002 wherein a demand of Rs. 20,728.63 has been made has again come to this Court inter alia submitting that the objections raised by the petitioner are still undecided and the demand is in teeth of the earlier directions issued by this Court. It is also to be seen that the notice contains further direction that if the amount is not paid then the Corporation would act in accordance with Sec. 206, may issue a warrant and the properties of the petitioner may be auctioned for recovery. 5. The petitioner says that this demand is illegal. Finding that the auction was absolutely illegal, on 4-10-2002 this Court required the Municipal Corporation to file the counter so that the case may be disposed of at the stage of admission. 5. The petitioner says that this demand is illegal. Finding that the auction was absolutely illegal, on 4-10-2002 this Court required the Municipal Corporation to file the counter so that the case may be disposed of at the stage of admission. This Court also directed that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner shall not be arrested for realisation of the amount as demanded in Annexure-7. I do not know what happened between 4-10-2002 and 7-2-2003. But on 7-2-2003 a request was made by the learned Counsel for the Corporation that the case be adjourned for two weeks so that he may seek instructions. Obviously upto 7-2-2003 the Chief Executive Officer, who was to hear and decide the objections or any other competent Officer of the Municipal Corporation did not inform the Counsel for the Municipal Corporation to State before the High Court that the objections have been disposed of on 5-2-2003. Taking an exception to the conduct of the authorities, on 7-2-2003 this Court directed that the Chief Executive officer of the Corporation and the person who had issued the notice to the petitioner shall appear in the Court with their detailed counter. In accordance with the said directions, the said two Officers are present in the Court. 6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Corporation that the objections were already decided on 5-2-2003 and as there is absolute compliance of the order of the High Court the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. sec. 149 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) relates to publication of notice of assessment. Sec. 150 of the Act talks of application for review and sec. 151 of the Act refers to the procedure by which the application for review/objection shall be disposed of the Chief Executive Officer or any Officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government sec. 151 of the Act reads as under: "151. Investigation of objections by Chief Executive Officer.--(1) All such objections shall be entered in a register to be maintained for the purpose and, on receipt of any objection, the Chief Executive Officer or any Officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government shall give a notice in writing to the objector of a time and place at which his objection will be investigated. (2) At the time and place so fixed, the Chief Executive Officer or any officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government shall hear the objection, in the presence of the objector or his authorised agent if he appears, or may for reasonable cause, adjourn the investigation. (3) When the objection has been determined, the order passed on such objection shall be recorded in the said register and, if necessary, an amendment made in the assessment list in accordance with the result of the objection." 8. A fair understanding of sec. 151 of the Act would show that objections are required to be entered in a register, a notice in writing to the objector is must of the time and place at which his objection will be investigated. According to Sub-sec. (2) in accordance with the notice at the time and place so fixed, the concerned officer shall hear the objection, in the presence of the objector or his authorised agent if he appears. After the objections are determined, the order passed on such objections shall be recorded in the said register. sec. 152 of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by the order under sec. 151 of the Act may take up the matter in appeal to the District Judge whose decision shall be final. 9. Ordinarily after disposal of the objection and passing of the order as contained in Annexure-A I should have required the petitioner to file an appeal and challenge the order dated 5-2-2003 before the District Judge but the totality of the circumstances compels me to proceed further in the matter. 10. I do not understand what took four months in filing the counter affidavit. I also cannot understand that despite orders dated 4-10-2002 why the objections were not decided. I also cannot understand and appreciate as to why the information about the alleged order dated 5-2-2003 was not sent to the Counsel, who was seeking time in the High Court on the ground that he has not received instructions. I could go to the extent of saying that the order dated 5-2-2003 is a manufactured and concocted order but I will not so record and would give some latitude to the Chief Executive Officer. 11. I could go to the extent of saying that the order dated 5-2-2003 is a manufactured and concocted order but I will not so record and would give some latitude to the Chief Executive Officer. 11. I enquired from the Chief Executive Officer that before deciding the objections any notice to show cause was ever issued to the petitioner; the learned Chief Executive Officer simply informed the Court that as much delay had already occasioned in the matter and the matter was to be disposed of at its earliest he did not issue any notice to the petitioner and disposed of the matter on the strength of the written objections raised by the petitioner. The submission made in person by the Chief Executive Officer is not palatable. When the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner then it is to be done in that manner only and not otherwise at all. When the law says for issuance of notice, fixing time and place and giving an opportunity of hearing then under no pretext the statutory requirement can be waived out or given away. In the present matter the manner in which the objections have been disposed of smacks foul. 12. Be that as it may, undisputedly in accordance with sec. 151 (2) of the Act no notice was ever issued to the petitioner. The order dated 5-2-2003 in fact is an eye wash. It is simply to fill the void created by he inaction of the Corporation. I am not ready to accept the submissions made by the Chief Executive Officer that because of the delay already caused he proceeded with the matter. If that was so, at least after receiving the first communication from their Standing Counsel sometime after 4-10-2002 the Chief Executive Officer could issue a notice, hear the petitioner and decide his objections. The order dated 5-2-2003 though was not the subject matter of the original writ application but as the illegality has been brought to my notice and is flowing directly from these proceedings, I cannot allow the said illegality to perpetuate and continue and would rather quash the said order dated 5-2-2003. The order dated 5-2-2003 is accordingly quashed. 13. The question still is that whether the petitioner should get his cost or not. The order dated 5-2-2003 is accordingly quashed. 13. The question still is that whether the petitioner should get his cost or not. On an earlier occasion the petitioner was required to come to the Court because during pendency of the objections raised by him the demand was sought to be pressed. On 11-3-1997 this Court respected the words of the Counsel for the Corporation and disposed of the writ application with the direction that no effect be given to the demand notice. If the words of the Counsel are to be respected by the Court then the said words are to be respected and maintained by the party at whose behalf the Counsel stands and makes a submission at Bar. On the earlier occasion the petitioner was certainly required to spend some good fortune to seek an order from this Court. This Court did not award any cost against the Corporation though prima facie their action was illegal. This time the demand as contained in Annexure 7 is patently illegal and is in the teeth of the earlier order passed by this Court. How the Corporation and its authorities/officers be allowed to act with impunity and compel other persons to come to the High Court or go to any other Court for redressal of their grievances. It because of the illegal acts the Corporation, its officers, employees and other authorities are compelling people to come to the Court then in case of such persons success he must be properly compensated because the Rule is to award cost. The petitioners writ application so far as Annexure-7 is concerned obviously has to be allowed and the demand has to be quashed because before making the demand the objections were not decided. For this illegal act of the Corporation in not observing the orders of the High Court and issuing the illegal demands the Corporation must pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 as cost to the petitioner. So far as the order dated 5-2-2003 is concerned though I have already quashed it but I must observe that the Officers of the Corporation either do not read law or if they so read, they dont understand it or if they understand it, they dont observe and implement it accordingly. 1,000 as cost to the petitioner. So far as the order dated 5-2-2003 is concerned though I have already quashed it but I must observe that the Officers of the Corporation either do not read law or if they so read, they dont understand it or if they understand it, they dont observe and implement it accordingly. When the law says that a person should be issued proper notice and be heard in accordance with law in support of his objections then neither the Chief Executive Officer nor any Officer of the Corporation had authority to decide the matter without issuing a notice fixing the time and date and without affording any opportunity of hearing to such objector. 14. After going through sec. 151 of the Act Mr. A.B. Prasad, Chief Executive Officer simply said that he did not issue notice as the matter was to be disposed of at its earliest. I fail to understand how this approach can be allowed to violate the provisions of law. A smooth disposal could be made by issuing a proper notice. In the present matter the action of the Chief Executive Officer in passing the order as contained in Annexure-A to the Counter Affidavit cannot be approved. The manner in which the Chief Executive Officer has observed and acted also cannot be approved. While quashing the order dated 5-2-20031 will award cost of Rs. 5000.00 in favour of the petitioner to be paid by the Chief Executive Officer personally. 15. The petition is allowed. The objections of the petitioner shall be heard in accordance with law after giving due notice to him fixing the date and time for hearing the objections.