Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to make a detailed representation to the second respondent, with regard to its claim, along with the relevant records to substantiate its claim, within a specified period. On such representation being submitted, the second respondent may be directed to consider and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the second respondent, as directed by this Court, no claim would be made against the petitioner, relating to the property tax said to be payable by the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 26.4.2011. 3. In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation to the second respondent, with regard to its claim, along with the relevant records to substantiate its claim, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being submitted, along with the relevant records, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall not demand the payment of property tax from the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 26.4.2011, till final orders are passed by the second respondent, as directed by this Court, by this order. It is also made clear that if the petitioner fails to make a representation to the second respondent, as permitted by this Court, it would be open to the respondents to enforce the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 26.4.2011 as per the procedure established by law. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the second respondent, it would be open to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum or authority, challenging the same, in the manner known to law. 4. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the second respondent, it would be open to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum or authority, challenging the same, in the manner known to law. 4. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No cost. Consequently, connected M.P.No.2 of 2012 is closed.