JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.: - Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent the rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing. 2. Though the impugned order is sought to be challenged on various grounds, it is not necessary to deal with all those grounds, suffice to refer to only one ground, namely, that the impugned order is totally a non-speaking order. Indeed the relevant portion of the order is comprised of one paragraph which reads thus :-- "In view of the argument mentioned above by complainant and clarification made by Dy. Supdt. I feel that the rate adopted is fair reasonable and I, therefore, confirm the R.V. to Rs. 1018310/- NPA(R) (NR) w.e.f. 1-4-2002." Apparently the impugned order is a non-speaking order and the same cannot be sustained. The authority after hearing the parties is required to pass a detail order with reference to the complaint making grievance about the increase in the rateable value. In the absence of proper reasoning disclosing justification for the ultimate order passed by the authority, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 3. The petition, therefore, succeeds. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned authority to decide the same afresh, after hearing the petitioners. In view of setting aside of the impugned order, all the consequential actions taken by the respondents also stand set aside. The rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. 4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the merits of the case or the points sought to be raised and all the points are kept open. Petition allowed. -----