IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.7953 of 2008 Between: M/s. Yeturi Constructions Limited, 843, Banjara Avenud, Banjara Hills, Road No. 1, Hyderabad - 500 034, Rep by its Managing Director, Mr. Y. Ramachandra Reddy. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Khairatabad Circle, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing the order of the 1st Respondent dated 21.01.008 for the assessment year 2001-2002 as passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in spite of specific request and consequently set aside the same as well as the consequential order of the 2nd respondent dated 08.02.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.7953 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for the respondents. At their request, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking a Writ of Certiorari assailing the order dated 21.01.2008 passed by the first respondent for the assessment year 2001-02 and the consequential order dated 08.02.2008 passed by the second respondent and to set aside both the orders. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the revision is disposed of without providing him proper opportunity. Hence, the Writ Petition. Having heard the counsel on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that admittedly, no opportunity has been provided to the petitioner before the impugned orders are passed. This Court has already taken a view that in a case of this nature, especially when a specific request is made for personal hearing, it is improper to deny any such request. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.01.2008 and 08.02.2008 passed by the first and second respondents respectively are set aside. The first respondent shall take up the revision “For Hearing” on 28.04.2008 at 10.30 a.m. and dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ______________ (C.V.RAMULU, J) 18th April 2008 Note: CC by three days B/O RRB