Judgment (1) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Municipal assessment Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal Corporation dated December 9, 2002 partly allowing her three appeals preferred against the order of the hearing officer dated July 25, 1996 made in the assessment proceedings. The tribunal declined to accept the case of the petitioner that the same valuation that had been made by the tribunal with respect to another flat located in the same building was to apply for determining valuation of her flat as well. The tribunal rather held that valuation of the other flat in question had been made by it without due application of mind, and hence valuation determined by it subsequently with respect to flats located in the adjacent premises should be the basis for determining valuation of her flat. The question is whether the premise was right. (2) The assessment proceedings were initiated by the corporation by issuing notices mentioning the proposed valuations with effect from third quarter of 1984-85, fourth quarter of 1984-85, and fourth quarter of 1990-91. The notice indicating the proposed valuations for the quarters of 1984-85 was issued on June, 17, 1996. The petitioner submitted her objection contending that the proposed valuations were, unreasonably high. The hearing officer undertook the adjudication process and upheld the proposed valuations. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred three appeals before the tribunal under section 189 (5) of the then Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (subsequently renamed as Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980); and by the impugned order the tribunal disposed of, all the three appeals partly allowing them. The valuations proposed by the corporation and upheld by the hearing officer were reduced to some extent. (3) Though directions were given for filing affidavits, the corporation and its authorities have chosen not to file any affidavit. Thus whatever the petitioner has said in the writ petition is to be treated as admitted by the respondents therein. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that facts regarding determination of valuation of another flat located in the same building for the same quarters stated in the writ petition are correct. Thus whatever the petitioner has said in the writ petition is to be treated as admitted by the respondents therein. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that facts regarding determination of valuation of another flat located in the same building for the same quarters stated in the writ petition are correct. On this fact, the question has arisen whether the tribunal was justified in holding that valuations determined for another flat located in the same building having been done without sufficient application of mind, in view of an order of the Mayor dated February, 8, 1986 permitting undervalued premise to be valued properly, the petitioner would not be entitled to get benefit of that valuation. (4) I agree with counsel for the petitioner that this reasoning of the tribunal is not acceptable. I am unable to agree with counsel for the corporation that the tribunal was empowered to determine valuations of the petitioners flat located in the same building, ignoring the valuations of another flat, already determined, if the facts and circumstances justified such a course. It is not the case of the corporation that valuation of the flat in question, described by the tribunal as a case of under valuation, was reopened by it for proper valuation in terms of the order of the Mayor dated February 8, 1986. The corporation permitted the alleged under valuation to remain in force. It did not apply to the tribunal to review its order of determining valuation of that flat. (5) On these facts, I am of the view that it was not proper on the part of the tribunal to ignore its own order on the ground that it had made it without due application of mind. Such a procedure and process if followed by any quasi judicial authority or forum, is bound to generate uncertainty and chaos. The doctrine of rule of law does not permit the authorities, forums and courts upon which law enjoins the duty to adjudicate disputes between litigants to follow such a procedure as was followed by the tribunal. Ignoring the determination of valuations of another flat located in the same building, the tribunal, in my view, should not have proceeded to determine the valuations of the petitioners flat on the basis of orders made by it regarding other adjacent properties. I think the order of the tribunal should be modified. Ignoring the determination of valuations of another flat located in the same building, the tribunal, in my view, should not have proceeded to determine the valuations of the petitioners flat on the basis of orders made by it regarding other adjacent properties. I think the order of the tribunal should be modified. (6) For these reasons, I dispose of the writ petition ordering as follows. The orders of the hearing officer and the tribunal are modified to the effect that for the three quarters in question annual valuations of the petitioners flat would be determined at the rates at which annual valuations for the same quarters of the flat of one Om Prakash Poddar located in the same building were determined. Valuations shall be determined in terms of this order by the appropriate authority of the corporation and fresh rate bills shall be issued indicating the amount payable by or refundable to the petitioner. This process shall be carried out and completed within six weeks from the date of communication of this order to the municipal commissioner of the corporation. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to get any refund, then either the amount shall be refunded or adjusted against her existing or future liability, if any. There shall be no order for costs. Writ petition succeeds.