Judgment (1) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Hearing Officer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation made in the assessment proceedings for which hearing notice dated May 12, 2007 was issued to the society. (2) IN the hearing notice no ground was stated why the corporation proposed to increase the annual valuation of the property. Expecting that before the hearing officer the ground would be disclosed by the corporation, the society submitted abjection and appeared before the hearing officer. Though the notice proposing increase in the annual valuation was to be given also to the tenants occupying various portions of the premises, no step for that was taken by the corporation. Before the hearing officer also the corporation did not disclose any ground in support of increase proposed in the hearing notice. The hearing officer made an order dated August, 6, 2007 and though he was under the obligation to communicate that to the society, no step was taken for that. Under the circumstances the petitioners took out this writ petition. (3) IN the course of hearing, Counsel for the corporation produces the order of the hearing officer dated August 6, 2007, which is : "R. O. is represented by his authorized person who appears with a vakalatnama and filed objection to the proposed A. V. which will speak for itself. Seen I.B. Heard both sides and considering all the asped submitted by the Adv appearing on (illegible) behalf that building is very old it is considered that A. V. is fixed at Rs. 72,770/- out of which n. R. (illegible) A.V. will be Rs. 71,150/- on the basis of total R. R. of Rs. 6,738/-. This (illegible) is agreed by the party." (4) FROM the order of the hearing officer dated August 6, 2007 it appears that the recorded owner of the premises submitted an objection. It further appears that the annual valuation and the non residential annual valuation were fixed on the basis of the reasonable rent. There is nothing to show that steps were taken for apportionment or notice was given to the tenants. In my view, Counsel for the petitioners is justified in saying that the hearing officer disposed of the objection and determined the annual valuation quite casually. It is has been rightly submitted that the hearing officer was under an obligation to give decision regarding apportionment. In my view, Counsel for the petitioners is justified in saying that the hearing officer disposed of the objection and determined the annual valuation quite casually. It is has been rightly submitted that the hearing officer was under an obligation to give decision regarding apportionment. Counsel for the corporation submits that the petitioners should have preferred an appeal. To this Counsel for the petitioners submits that when the order made by the hearing officer was no order in the eye of law, the petitioners were entitled to approach the writ Court straight. His submission is that a fair trial by the appellate forum could not cure the illegality caused by the unfair trial. In support of his contentions he relies on Calcutta Gujarati education Society and Anr. v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors. , (2003) 10 SC 533 : (2003)2 WBLR (SC) 696 and Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L. K. Ratna and Ors., (1988)4 SCC 517. In my view, the order of the hearing officer should be set aside, and he should be directed to decide the objection of the society and determine the question of increase in the annual valuation after giving notice of the proposed increase to the tenants of the premises. (5) FOR these reasons, I dispose of the writ petition ordering as follows. The order of the hearing officer dated August 6, 2007 is hereby set aside. After giving notice of the proposed increase to the tenants of the premises (reasons for increase shall be specifically stated in the notice), and after giving all concerned opportunity of submitting their respective objections, the hearing officer shall give a reasoned decision dealing with the objections submitted and to be submitted by the persons opposing the proposed increase in the annual valuation. Opportunity of hearing shall be given to all the parties. If it is found that the society has already made payment in excess of its liability, then necessary order shall be made and steps shall be taken for refund or adjustment of the amount paid by it in excess of its liability. The reasoned decision (to be given dealing with all contentions raised by the parties) shall be communicated to all concerned immediately. There shall be no order for costs.