Judgment By the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of Executive Officer (Prabhari Adhikari) of the Municipality, Almora dated 26-11-1987 and that of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora dated 22-09-1988 (Annexure-I & II to the writ petition). 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioners are that they are the owner of a building no. 284 at Thana Bazar, Almora, which is a triple storied building and the petitioners are in occupation of the 2nd floor and the ground floor. A smali shop of the petitioners has been let out to a tenant on a rent @ Rs. 80/- per month and the 1st floor is rented out to another tenant @ Rs. 100/- per month. There is no other tenant in whole of the building in question. 3. The Municipal Board, Almora sent a notice dated 25-12-1986 to the petitioners on 01-01-1987 and informed the petitioners that the annual assessment of the building in question, namely, building no. 284, had been increased from Rs. 8592/- to Rs. 14,280/-. The Municipal Board also invited objections against the proposed increase of annual assessment of the building in question within a period of one month. The petitioners filed objections on 02-01-87 before the Municipal Board, Almora as against the proposed Annual Assessment contained in the notice dated 25-12-86. The petitioners in para 2 of the objections stated that the building was constructed in the year 1975-76 and since then no new constructions or material additions have been made in the building. In paragraph 4 of the objections, the petitioners submitted that the rooms which were previously let out to some tenants, were not being occupied by the tenants and no alterations have been made in the building; and that the tenants were only in the second storey of the building and therefore, there was no question of increasing the assessment of the building. Para 2 and 4 of the objections dated 02-01-1987 are reproduced below: HIDNI TYPING 4. The Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Almora by the order dated 26-11-1987 increased the annual assessment of the building in question from Rs. 8592/- to Rs. 14,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26-11-1987, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 160 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora. 6. The Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Almora by the order dated 26-11-1987 increased the annual assessment of the building in question from Rs. 8592/- to Rs. 14,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26-11-1987, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 160 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Executive Officers of the Municipal Board, Almora in his order dated 26-11-87, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, wrongly and arbitrarily recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioners had admitted that there are ten tenants in their building. The counsel further submitted that it was highly improper to increase annual assessment of the building from Rs. 8592/- to Rs. 14,000/-, i.e., near about double of the then existing assessment on the alleged admission of the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners have further submitted that if the intention of the petitioners had been to accept the increased assessment of the building, he would not have chosen to file any objections against the notice dated 26-12-1986. 7. The counsel for the petitioners has referred paragraph 7 and 8 of the writ petition staling therein that the C.J.M., Almora and the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board failed to consider the grounds of objections of the petitioners. Relevant paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition are reproduced to below: "7. That the counsel for the petitioners argued before the C.J.M. Almora, at the time of the disposal of the appeal, that the Executive Officer of the Municipality failed to consider the grounds of objections of the petitioner and it increased Annual Assessment arbitrarily. It was also argued that no basis or reasons have been given in the order of the Executive Officer which could justify the increase of the Annual Assessment. The appellate court did not decide all these questions which were argued before the appellate court. 8. The appellate court wrongly and illegally relied certain documents of the Municipal Board without being satisfied that they had been formally proved in accordance with law". 8. The Municipal Board, Almora in paragraph 9 and 10 of its counter affidavit has dealt with paragraph 7 and 8 of the writ petition but has vaguely stated that the contents of paragraph 7 and 8 of the writ petition are not admitted. 8. The Municipal Board, Almora in paragraph 9 and 10 of its counter affidavit has dealt with paragraph 7 and 8 of the writ petition but has vaguely stated that the contents of paragraph 7 and 8 of the writ petition are not admitted. It has not been specifically denied in the Counter affidavit that no such argument was raised before the appellate court. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that Section 143 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 gives a statutory legal right of personal hearing to the owner of the building who files objections against the fixation or increasing of annual assessment of the building. Section 143 is reproduced to below: "143. Objections to entries in list. - (1) The Board shall at the same time give public notice of a date, not less than one month thereafter, when it will proceed to consider the valuations and assessments entered therein; and in all cases in which any property is for the first time assessed or the assessment is increased, it shall also give notice thereof to the owner or occupier of the property, if known. (2) All objections to valuations and assessments shall be made to the board, before the date fixed in the notice, by application in writing stating the grounds on which the valuation and assessment are disputed, and all applications so made shall be registered in a book to be kept by the board for the purpose. (3) The board, or a committee empowered by delegation in this behalf, on an officer of Government or the board to whom, with the permission of the Prescribed Authority the board delegates, and it is hereby empowered so to delegate by resolution, powers in this behalf, shall, after allowing the applicant an opportunity of being heard in person or by agent. (a) investigate and dispose of the objections; (b) cause the result thereof to be noted in the book kept under sub section (2); and (c) cause any amendment necessary in accordance with such result to be made in the assessment list. " 10. (a) investigate and dispose of the objections; (b) cause the result thereof to be noted in the book kept under sub section (2); and (c) cause any amendment necessary in accordance with such result to be made in the assessment list. " 10. On a bare perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916, it becomes manifestly clear that opportunity of personal hearing is a statutory legal right of the owner of a building and at the same time it is the statutory legal duty of the Municipal Board not only to afford opportunity of personal hearing to the owner of the building but also to investigate and dispose of objections filed by him. 11. The petitioners have come up with the plea that they have not been given any opportunity of personal hearing before disposal of their objections. The petitioners took a specific plea in their appeal before the appellate authority that without affording personal hearing to the petitioners the Municipal Board increased the annual assessment of the building. The C.J.M., Almora, the appellate authority, has mentioned this plea raised in the appeal, in the body of its order, which is reproduced to below: HINDI TYPING 12. Apparently, the Executive Officer has not investigated the objections filed by the petitioners dated 02-07-1987 keeping in view sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The Executive Officer went on deciding the matter merely by making an observation in the order that the petitioners had admitted occupation of ten tenants in the building. The Executive Officer has without even examining the objections of the petitioners has disposed of the matter. 13. The petitioners in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition has assailed the observations recorded by the Executive Officer in the order dated 26-111987. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition are reproduced to below: "5. That the objections of the petitioners were rejected by the Municipality on 26-11-1987. The Executive Officer in his order merely recorded one-sided version of the Municipality that there were ten tenants in the building in question and only on that basis arbitrarily affirmed annual assessment of the building in question. 6. That the order of the Executive Officer is non-speaking as it has not explained the details of the alleged tenants and the rate of tenancy. 6. That the order of the Executive Officer is non-speaking as it has not explained the details of the alleged tenants and the rate of tenancy. The Officer also failed to consider the grounds of objections of the petitioners while deciding the objections of the petitioners. " 14. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora while acting as an appellate authority has also not taken due care to see that the objections filed by the petitioners on 02-07-1987 had not been considered, investigated and decided by the Executive officer and the order was passed in complete breach of the principal of nature justice. 15. A Bench of this Court in writ petition no. 6914 of 2000 (S/S), Bimla Negi V. D.I.O.S., Almora, decided on 05.06.2004, has referred certain observation of the Apex Court given in the case of O.K. Yadav V.J.M.A. Industries, which are reproduced to below: "It is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will affect the right of any person without first being informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. An order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner {1978) 1 SCC 405: (1978) 2 SCR 272, 308-F) the Constitution Bench held that 'civil consequences' covers infraction of not merely property or personal right but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation every thing that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edn., page 1487 defined civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state of country .... they include ..... rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action .... In State of Orissa v. (Miss) Binapani Dei {1967) 2 SCR 625: AIR 1967 SC 1269: (1967) 2 LU 266) this Court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. The person concerned must be informed of the case, the evidence in support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principles of natural justice. The person concerned must be informed of the case, the evidence in support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principles of natural justice. In State ofW.B. v. An war Ali Sarkar(1952 SCR 284: AIR 1952 SC 75: 1952 Cri LJ 510) per majority, a seven Judge Bench held that the rule of procedure laid down by law comes as much within the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution as any rule of substantive law. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248: (1978) 2 SCR 621] another Bench of seven Judges held that the substantive and procedural laws and action taken under them will have to pass the test under Article 14. The test of reason and justice cannot be abstract. They cannot be divorced from the needs of the nation. The tests have to be pragmatic otherwise they would cease to be reasonable. The procedure prescribed must be just, fair and reasonable even though there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the right of that individual. The duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action. Even executive authorities which take administrative action involving any deprivation of or restriction on inherent fundamental rights of citizens, must take care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done. They have a duty to proceed in a way which is free from even the appearance of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness. They have to act in a manner which is patently impartial and meets the requirements of natural justice. " 16. Therefore, it was necessary for the appellate authority, exercising quasi-judicial power under Section 160 of the Municipality Act, to see that proper opportunity is given to the petitioners. 17. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated 26-11-1987 passed by the Executive Officer (Prabhari Adhikari), Municipal Board, Almora and the order dated 22-09-1988 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora. 18. 17. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated 26-11-1987 passed by the Executive Officer (Prabhari Adhikari), Municipal Board, Almora and the order dated 22-09-1988 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora. 18. However, it will be open for the Municipal Board, Almon, to assess the buildings in question for the purposes of Municipal taxation for the forthcoming assessment years according to law. There will be no order as to costs.