Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed seeking to call for the records of the respondents pertaining to the assessment and levy of vacant Land Tax as demanded by the respondents, particularly the second respondent, in their tax demand car showing vacant Land Tax Assessment No. 180137, ward No. 59 writer A6, pertaining to the property owned by the petitioner at Door No.101, Pudu Kinaru Street, Coimbatore, quash the same and direct the respondents to provide 4 water connections to the 4 apartment buildings, constructed by collecting appropriate charges. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the levy of vacant and tax demanded by the respondents particularly the second respondent in the Assessment order has been passed without issuing a notice to the petitioner setting out the grounds on which the vacant and tax is assessed and without giving him an opportunity to defend the claim that the respondents are not entitled to demand vacant land tax. 3. In so far as the property tax is concerned no dispute is raised in the present writ petition that the land is vacant from 2005 to 2008. After completion of the building, when the petitioner sought for assessment of the building tax, the respondents imposed vacant Land tax in addition to the property tax on the vacant land and such demand is resisted by the petitioner stating that the order demanding vacant land tax is a non speaking order. 4. Heard Mr. N. Chandra Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the counter affidavit to state that the amount that has been determined by the respondents in respect of the vacant land tax is based on the guidelines and G.Os issued from time to time. The details of the calculation on the basis of which vacant land tax is demanded and has been set out in the Counter affidavit. 6. This Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned assessment with regard to the vacant land tax for the following reasons: 1) The assessment of vacant land tax has been passed without issuing a proper notice to the petitioner. There is no basis shown as to how the amount has been arrived. 6. This Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned assessment with regard to the vacant land tax for the following reasons: 1) The assessment of vacant land tax has been passed without issuing a proper notice to the petitioner. There is no basis shown as to how the amount has been arrived. 2) The petitioner is deprived of his right to make an objection to the competent authority as the demand and levy of vacant land tax is a non speaking order. 3) The department has clarified the demand in its counter affidavit explaining the basis on which the vacant land tax has been arrived and that is contrary to law. 7. It is trite law that the case of the respondents cannot be improved on the basis of the counter-affidavit or the written submissions vide Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851 and S.N. Mukherjee vs Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 . In para 8 of the decision in AIR 1978 SC 851 reads as follows: “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity much be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J., in Gordhandas Bhani ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ) (at P.18): “Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light ‘of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” Para 36 in (1990) 4 SCC 594 reads thus:- 36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact where the decision is subject to appeal, revision on judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. In this case there are no reasons to support the claim and the demand is explained in the counter affidavit which cannot be done. 8. In view of the above said decision, the impugned order in the levy of vacant land tax imposed in so far as the petitioner is concerned is set aside and the respondents are directed to proceed further in the matter by putting the petitioner on notice and after affording the petitioner an opportunity to defend the claim. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The authority will determine the tax without any delay in any event on or before 16th April 2010. The writ petition is ordered as above. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.