IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 08-01-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.1190 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.1335 of 2006 and W.V.M.P.No.58 of 2008 R.M.Palanisami .. Petitioner. Versus State represented by The Divisional Excise Officer, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore. .. Respondent. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in respect of the impugned notice, dated 28.12.2005, in Na.Ka.No.1937/98A of the respondent herein, quash the same and direct the respondent herein to afford reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before coming to a conclusion in this regard. For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali Government Advocate O R D E R This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for and quash the notice, dated 28.12.2005, in Na.Ka.No.1937/98A, issued by the respondent. 2. The petitioner has stated that he was granted a licence for the sale of arrack at shop No.22/81, Kangayampalayam, for the period from 16.7.1981 to 15.7.1982, having been the successful bidder in the auction conducted by the respondent. However, the petitioner had surrendered the licence, on 28.11.2001, as he had suffered heavy losses in the business. The deposit amount of Rs.46,225/- is still with the authorities concerned. While so, the respondent had issued the impugned notice, dated 28.12.2005, demanding the payment of Rs.2,51,564/-, payable by the petitioner, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the only contention made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order had been passed, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, it is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Since, the passing of the impugned order by the respondent is contrary to the principles of natural justice, it is liable to be set aside. Hence, he had prayed that the impugned notice of the respondent, dated 28.12.2005, may be set aside, leaving it open to the respondent to pass an appropriate order, afresh, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, the impugned notice of the respondent, dated 28.12.2005, is set aside. However, it is open to the respondent to pass appropriate orders, afresh, with regard to the liability of the petitioner, after giving him an opportunity of personal hearing. The respondent may pass such order, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The notices calling the petitioner for the enquiry shall be issued to the address, as shown in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The petitioner shall fully cooperate in the enquiry, by appearing in person and by producing all necessary records. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected writ petition miscellaneous petiton and writ vacate miscellaneous petition. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To The Divisional Excise Officer, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore. 1 cc To Mr..C.S.Dhanasekaran, Advocate, SR.1973 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.2060 Writ Petition No.1190 of 2006 rsm(co)pmk.21.1.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/