IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10785 of 2007 Between: 1 Ponaka Sreenivasa Reddy S/o.Venkata Seshi Reddy R/o.H.No.16-1-1891, Sreenivasa Aggaraharam Nellore Town, Nellore District 2 Ponaka Kiranmai W/o.Sreenivasulu Reddy R/o.H.No.16-1-1891, Sreenivasa Aggaraharam Nellore Town, Nellore District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Muthukur Mandal Nellore District 2 The District Collector, Nellore District, Nellore .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of an extent of Acs.7.00 in Sy.No.288 and 341 Mamidipalli village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District is arbitrary, malafide and violation of rights guaranteed under Article 320-A of constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.CHINTALAPUDI LAKSHMI KUMARI Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Ramesh Ranganathan, J) Heard Sri M.V.K. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. Aggrieved by the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Sitaramapuram Circle dated 16-04-2009, whereby the assessment was finalized under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,44,155/-, the present writ petition is filed. Though several contentions are raised by Sri M.V.K. Murthy, the writ petition is required to be allowed on the short ground that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. While the petitioner was asked to show cause vide notice dated 28-02-2009, calling upon them to submit their objections within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, the said notice was actually served on the petitioner only on 16-04-2009 and, as such, time was available to the petitioner to submit its objections till 30-04-2009. However, the impugned order was passed on 16-04-2009 itself. It is evident, therefore, that the impugned order was passed without giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to submit their objections to the show cause notice. As the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, it is required to be, and is accordingly, set aside. The petitioner shall submit their objections to the show cause notice within ten days from today and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing on 22-06-2009, it is open to the respondents to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. It is made clear that since the date of personal hearing is fixed as 22-06-2009, no notice regarding the date of personal hearing need be given to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 8th June, 2009 ks Note: Furnish copy in two days. B/O ks