JUDGMENT
V.K. Bali, J.
1. Madan Lal along with his two brothers in this writ filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order, Annexure P-1, dated May 6, 1992, passed by the Committee constituting the Administrator as well as the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, Tapa, vide which objections filed by the petitioners were rejected and the property bearing No. 1061, which is stated to be shop, was assessed to annual rental value of Rs. 30,000/- on which tax payable was Rs. 4050/-. All that equires to be mentioned here is that in the year preceding the compound order hop bearing No. 1061 was assessed to an annual rental value of Rs. 17,000/- on which house tax of Rs. 1025/- was payable. The annual assessment came to the enhanced, as in view of the Municipal Committee, petitioners had constructed more shops.
2. Various grounds have been taken asking for quashing of order, Annexure P-1, and the order passed by the Appellate Authority, dated January 29, 1993, Annexure P-2. It may be mentioned here that the appeal carried against order, Annexure P-1, was dismissed vide order, Annexure P-2. However, the only argument pressed into service, during the course of arguments on behalf of the petitioners, is that the Administrator of the Municipal Committee, at that time, was the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barnala and he was one of the members of the Committee, which passed order, Annexure P-1. Against this order, when an appeal was carried, the same came to be disposed of by the S.D.M., who was exercising the powers of the Deputy Commissioner. In the context of the facts, as have been mentioned above, it is being argued that the powers of the Appellate Authority could not be exercised by a person of concurrent jurisdiction and, therefore, alone order, Annexure P-2, i.e. the order passed in appeal, deserves to be set-aside.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, the Court is of the view that if power is exercised by a person, who has concurrent jurisdiction as the Authority, originally deciding the matter, it will not be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. An office of the higher rank would have no hesitation in setting aside an order passed by an authority of the rank below him whereas it is possible that if the Appellate Authority is of concurrent jurisdiction with the authority who originally passed the order, there may be some hesitation for the said Authority to decide the case particularly when it has to reverse the said order. Keeping in view, thus, that all the matters have to be decided fairly, without any fear, the Court considers it necessary to quash order, Annexure P-2. It may be mentioned here that in a given case the Appellate Authority may be junior to the one who decided the matter originally and in that case it would be all the more difficult for the said authority to take a different view. This petition is, thus allowed to the limited extent. Order, Annexure P-2 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, who, after hearing the parties or their counsel, would decide the matter afresh. Parties, through their counsel are directed to appear before the said Authority on June 17, 1996.
4. Since the matter has already been considerably delayed, the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the same expeditiously.