IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA ?RADESH AT JABPUR AL MISC. PETITIoN mo.;z\o& OF 1988. CF0000112798 PETITIONER: Centur Textiles and Industries Ld.. Company registered under the company Ac having its Unit known as Century Cemen P.0.Baikunth 493-116 District Raipur M.3?. ‘ 1 St May radeh through Col lector Raiu . ° g Offcer, Raip Collectorat Rap. C9NS‘1‘I’I‘UTION IN ITS A?PLICATIGN TfO STATE OF' MADHYA PRADESH y t a: t t- Versus r RES?0NDENT§:S. ate of dha §s pr £ 2 Minin i ur e iur IN/TPE MATTER OF ARTICLE .226 AND 2270F OF INDIA AND IN Tm MATTER OF INDIAN STAme AcTT899 kg) HIG H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETlTlON NO.2102 OF 1988 ‘ Century Tetiles an Industries Ltd. PETITIONER x d Versus Siate of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Another Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Versus RESPONDENTS State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Another (Writ Petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench ' Hon’ble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Present :- Shri Ashish Shrlvastava & Shri Harsh Wardhan Advocates for the petitioners Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Advocate General with Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 24‘“ day of June, 201 1) 1, Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. W.P.Nos.2102/1988, 232/1990, 3011/1990 & 4398/1989, involve the same question of law a‘nd common facts and, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETlTlON NO.232 OF 1990 PETIT!ONER RESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh) & Others WRIT PETITION NO.3011 OF 1990 PETITIONER Akheraj Luniya Versus RESPONDENTS State of Madhya Pradesh, (now Chhattisgarh) & Another And WRIT PETITION NO.4398 OF 1989 PETITIONER Akheraj Luniya submits that these cases are identical to M.P.No.277 of 1987 (Diwan Lime Company Pvt. Limited & Another v. Mining Officer, Satna & Others) and M.P.No.1497 of 1988 (Century Textiles and Industries Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others), which have been decided on 24—6-1999. In Diwan Lime Company Pvt. Limited (supra) the issue of payment of deficit stamp duty was involved. The Court after considering the submission of the, then, State counsel, came to the following conclusion : "10. So far as the part of opportunity of hearing is concerned, it is not denied that the opportunity was not given that is, what is stated was that no opportunity was required. When adjudication on a point is done, it implies that an opportunity shou/d be given to a person against whom adjudication is done. lam of the view that the petitioners having not been given the opportunity, the impugned notices deserve to be quashed and the same are hereby quashed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners t) ( remanded to the Mining Oh‘icer for passing an appropriate order according to taw after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The security amount, deposited if any, may be refunded and the Bank guarantee, if any, given by the petitioners, shall stand discharged. " Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is no objection if the petitioners are granted opportunity to adjudicate the dispute on the issue of payment of stamp duty. No objection from other side. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of the decision rendered in Diwan Lime Company Pvt. Limited (supra). No order asto costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri 1”