IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 4727 of 2009 Between: M/s.Sirpur Paper Mills Limited, Sirpur-Kaghaznagar Adilabad, District, rep.by its Chief Administrative Officer Ch.Seetharamaiah, S./o.Late Venkatappaiah aged 63 years,R/o.Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND Kaghaznagar Municipality, Sirpur-Kaghaznagar, Adilabad District, rep.by its Commissioner .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or orders direction or directions declaring the proceedings of the Respondent in Demand Notice 1 to 21 dated 21.2.2009 imposing property Tax in pursuance to the Revision Notices dated 17.12.2008 on the petitioner in respect of various structures situated in its Factory as illegal, arbitrary,and unconstitutional and to issue a consequential direction to the Respondent to act in accordance with law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Sri Polisetty Radhakrishna, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 2. The short grievance, which has been ventilated in this petition is with regard to violation of principles of natural justice as well as violation of Rule 13 of Taxation and Finance Rules framed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). 3. It is the case of the petitioner that taxes in respect of the property owned by the petitioner company had been increased under Rule 11 of the Rules. When intimation with regard to the said increase was given to the petitioner under order dated 17.12.2008, it had filed its objections on 10.2.2009. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the objections filed by it before the Commissioner, it ought to have been given personal hearing as per the provisions of Rule 13, which reads as under: “No petition under Rule 10, Rule 11 or Rule 12 shall be disposed of unless the petitioner has been given an opportunity to appear either in person or by an authorized agent and to represent his case.” 5. It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that neither any officer nor any representative of the petitioner was given an opportunity to represent its case and, therefore, the impugned orders, which have been forwarded to the petitioner along with letter dated 21.2.2009 demanding amount of tax are bad in law and accordingly the same are to be quashed and set aside. 6. The afore-stated factual aspect could not be denied by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality. He had to admit the fact that no personal hearing as provided under Rule 13 of the Rules was given to the petitioner. 7. In view of the afore-stated admitted fact that the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules have been violated while passing the impugned orders imposing tax at higher rate, we quash and set aside the said orders. 8. Learned advocates agreed that the Commissioner of the respondent Municipality would hear the officer or agent of the petitioner on 21.3.2009 at 11-00 A.M. and the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would not expect any special notice to that effect and a representative or an agent of the petitioner would remain present before the Commissioner on the said date so that the petitioner can be effectively heard. 9. We are sure that the respondent shall consider the objections, which have been filed, and the representation, which might be made at the time of hearing, and shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 10. In view of the above order, the petition stands disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. ____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 6th March, 2009 ks