JUDGMENT : 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of notice dated 10-3-2010 (Annexure P-2) by which the respondent Cantonment Board, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Board') has informed the petitioners that under section 76 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for brevity), the Board has prepared a new assessment list of which a public notice has already been published, enhancing the rental value of the properties and if any objection is required to be raised, the petitioners were called upon to submit the objections. It is the case of the petitioners that they have raised the objection by filing a written reply to the notice on 26-3-2010 vide Annexure P-3 but instead of deciding the said objection, communicating any decision to the petitioners, action has been initiated for recovery of the tax and for the said purposes, a complaint is made before the Cantonment Magistrate, who has issued a summon to the petitioners vide Annexure P-5 for taking an action under section 324 of the Act. Therefore, petitioners are required to file this writ petition. 2. It is contended by the petitioners that under section 111(2)(b) of the Act, the petitioners are entitled to be exempted from payment of any property tax as they are using the building for the educational purposes and imposition of property tax on such building is not permissible under the law. It is further contended by the petitioners that since the Act, 2006 has come into force and for the first time the notice was issued under the said Act vide Annexure P-2 on 10-3-2010, the objection was raised by the petitioners and without deciding the said objection, no action whatsoever could have been taken against them. It is also contended by the petitioners that by moving application vide Annexure P-4, before respondent, they have claimed exemption from payment of property tax. It is further contended by the petitioners that if the objection and the application of the petitioners were decided, it was necessary on the part of the respondents to communicate the decision to the petitioners in terms of the provisions of section 70 of the Act but as no order was communicated to the petitioners on their objection or application, action on the part of the respondent was not just and proper. It is further contended that without ascertaining the actual dues towards the property tax and serving a demand notice on the petitioner indicating the property tax due against the petitioners, the matter was referred for recovery of the property tax to the Cantonment Magistrate in terms of the provisions of section 324 and since now the action has been initiated against the petitioners under the aforesaid provision of the Act, they are left with no option but to file the present writ petition seeking quashment of such action of the respondent Board. 3. This Court entertained the writ petition and issued notices to the respondents vide order dated 30-3-2011. This Court has further granted an interim protection to the petitioners staying the recovery proceedings initiated against them in the Court of judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. 4. The respondent has filed a detailed return denying the claim made by the petitioners and has very categorically contended that the objection of the petitioners stood decided by the Committee of the respondent and such a decision was incorporated in assessment committee register of 2007-2010. It was already held that the decision is taken by the committee of the respondent Board that instead of enhancing the monthly letting value of the property of the petitioners to the tune of Rs. 12,500/-, it be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 12,300/-. Accordingly, it is contended that such a decision of the committee of the respondent Board became appealable under section 93 of the Act and since appeal has not been filed, the writ petition is not maintainable. Further it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the assessment list once published and notified, it became appealable and instead of filing an appeal, as provided under the Act, the writ petition was not to be filed before this Court nor the writ petition was to be entertained. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioners were paying the property tax for the last many years and they have never raised any objection nor have claimed any exemption. It is contended that under the earlier enactment also the very similar provision of exemption was prescribed but the petitioners have never asked for any exemption, on the other hand they were paying the property tax. It is contended that under the earlier enactment also the very similar provision of exemption was prescribed but the petitioners have never asked for any exemption, on the other hand they were paying the property tax. It is further contended that the petitioners are not using the building for any charitable purposes. On the other hand they are charging huge fees from the parents of the wards admitted in the school. Thus, it is contended that the petitioners are not entitled to any exemption under the provisions of section 111(2)(b) of the Act. It is contended that since concealing all these facts interim protection has been obtained by the petitioners, therefore, such an order is liable to be vacated and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. 6. True it is that notice was given to the petitioners for enhancement of letting value of the properties of petitioners for the purpose of imposition of property tax and the objection was filed by the petitioners before the Chief Executive Officer of the Board but it is also equally true that the petitioners were paying the property tax on earlier occasion. It cannot be said that exemption from payment of property tax became available when the Act of 2006 was enacted by the Parliament. The Cantonments Act, 1924 was in force and the very same provisions were made in the said Act also. At no point of time any such exemption was claimed by the petitioners from payment of property tax. It is not the case of the petitioners to say that they were not-paying the property tax and that they were granted any sort of exemption. Not a single statement is made in this respect. Therefore, the contention that the petitioners are taken by surprise by issuance of notice for payment of property tax or enhancement of letting value of the property for the purposes of imposition of tax or revision of tax, cannot be accepted. 7. However, if an exemption is claimed under an enactment or any objection of enhancement of letting value of property was filed, it was necessary on the part of the Cantonment officials to decide the said claims of the petitioners and to communicate the decision to the petitioners. 7. However, if an exemption is claimed under an enactment or any objection of enhancement of letting value of property was filed, it was necessary on the part of the Cantonment officials to decide the said claims of the petitioners and to communicate the decision to the petitioners. Why it is so necessary because under Chapter-V of the Act the provisions are made for imposition of taxes and fees. The entire chapter deals with various provisions of issuing notices, intimating the intention of imposition of tax or the revision of such tax, if already imposed and consideration of such objection, if any, and disposal thereof. It is categorically provided under section 70 of the Act, which falls within the same chapter, that if any objection is raised within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of notice, the Board shall take such objection into consideration and pass orders thereon by "special resolution". A recommendation of the committee of the Board cannot be treated to be a special resolution of the Board and, therefore, it cannot be said that the objection of the petitioners is decided objectively. 8. Such a consideration was more than necessary because the petitioners claimed the benefit of exemption of tax under the provisions of section 11 l(2)(b) of the Act, which is reproduced hereinbelow : "111(2)(b) : buildings used for educational purposes, public libraries, play grounds and dharamshalas which are open to the public and from which no income is derived;" The exemption reads that if the buildings are used for educational purposes, public libraries, playgrounds and dharamshalas, which are open to the public and from which no income is derived, the same shall be granted exemption from any property tax other than the tax imposed to cover the cost of specific services rendered by the Board, if it is claimed by the petitioners that they are using the building only for the purposes of imparting education to the students by establishing public schools and if it is demonstrated by the petitioners that except for the management of the schools they are charging nothing for the maintenance of the building from the students, of course they may be exempted from payment of property tax. The contention, therefore, that the petitioners are charging heavy fees, without there being any assessment or computation as to how the fees is being charged and for what purposes by the petitioners, it could not be said that the fees charged by the petitioners is only to earn the profit out of the school established by them. In fact a detailed inspection/enquiry in this respect was required to be done by the Board and then a special resolution was required to be passed objectively meeting every objection raised by the petitioners with respect to the imposition of property tax and also to consider whether the petitioners were entitled to grant of exemption under the Act or not and such an order was required to be communicated to the petitioners. Since this has not been done, it cannot be said that the Board acted fairly and properly in a reasonable manner. 9. The objection raised by the respondent that no appeal has been filed by the petitioners, cannot be accepted at this stage. Firstly no decision on the representation/objection of the petitioners was communicated to them enabling them to file any appeal and secondly the appeal could have been filed within a period of 30 days after the date of authentication of the assessment list inclusive of the time required for obtaining a copy of the relevant entries therein. Merely because such a provision is made and it is stated that the list of assessment was notified, it will not be possible for each and every person, who has raised the objections in the manner the petitioners in the present case have raised, to challenge such an assessment, treating it deemed rejection of objection. The appeal can be filed only if any reasons are recorded in the register of assessment because the reasons and findings alone constitute the grounds for challenge in an appeal. How would one know on what count and reasons the pleas raised by him are not accepted by the authorities if reasons and findings are not recorded by authorities dealing with objections or applications. Even the appellate authority will not be able to appreciate such contentions unless some findings of concerning authorities are before it. Therefore, in such circumstances, merely because appeal was not filed, it cannot be said that the writ petition was not maintainable. Even the appellate authority will not be able to appreciate such contentions unless some findings of concerning authorities are before it. Therefore, in such circumstances, merely because appeal was not filed, it cannot be said that the writ petition was not maintainable. Lastly, it is seen that there is no amount mentioned, which is to be recovered from the petitioners towards the property tax even in the summons issued by the judicial Magistrate First Class to the petitioners. Only this much is said that proceedings are initiated under section 324 of the Act and for that purposes the petitioners are required to appear in person. How would the petitioners know that they were liable to pay any amount towards the property tax unless a specific demand is made from them by issuing a notice. Not a single document is placed on record by the respondent to show that any notice demanding payment of tax was issued to the petitioners and since they have not paid such an amount, the recovery is required to be done under section 324 of the Act. This further shows that the respondent has acted in such a manner in high haste without following the process of law. Such a stand of the respondent, therefore, cannot be accepted. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The recovery proceeding initiated vide summon issued in M.J.C. No. 88/2010 before judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, against the petitioners is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent Cantonment Board to decide the objection of the petitioners as raised vide Annexure P-3 and application for grant of exemption vide Annexure P-4 and to pass appropriate order by passing a special resolution and to communicate the same to the petitioners. In case it is found that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of exemption, amount of property tax be assessed and intimated to the petitioners by the respondent Board within a period of one month from the date of communication of the order passed today. The petitioners will submit a detailed representation along with copy of the reply to the show cause notice and the application for grant of exemption together with the relevant documents and a certified copy of this order passed today before the respondent within a period of 10 days from today. The petitioners will submit a detailed representation along with copy of the reply to the show cause notice and the application for grant of exemption together with the relevant documents and a certified copy of this order passed today before the respondent within a period of 10 days from today. On receipt of such objection/application, the respondent will decide the same within the time as directed hereinabove. 11. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed of but with no order as to cost. Petition allowed.