gm )w T 3‘B_QDES:1 AT JABEuJE‘". IN THE HEGH COURT OF MADHYA Misc. ’PeJci’aion No._ éi/lggl. a Bank, Maryadit, g Director; \Raipur,’ :1 {‘1 ‘ HPetitioner; ; Jila thrcug‘n Sahkari Shri l‘ermriy R.¢S.B§ardwa3,Managin 7. x s CFMM111956 g“ VesuSn— r Corp orat ion, Ra ipur a§e§xa§a§a§2x through rag Ccmmissioner, ‘ 2. The or Local S’cafie Self of Madmra Government,3hopal. Pradeah,£hrough Direct~ ems 226g2gz_01«‘ THE COE‘asTITUTwwQ‘B; vmn: m THE Mylgg OFwygAs Re sgondenEg: lymnic iy a1 PETHmN UNDER. Mm INDIA FQR Gam‘srr mi A QR m 3g wwwyy-u R a x Xl-HC-78 W §qi$ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .. ............. 1.. mzoo N? H$‘«"\\‘5 m21m(aaiawa) mmwmm ‘ ,WW#WW wwma Shri D.K. Tiwari, counsel fcr the petitioner, Shri Ashish Shn‘vastava, counsel far respondent No‘ 1‘ Shri Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Adv. for respcndent No.2. Heard, .., r. , By the igstant petition the petitioner hae requested for quaehment of notice '(Annqggurc P—13) dated 27.1 1.19§l issued by respondent NGJ whereby the petitioneuhas been asked deposit the tax amount of building as mentioned in the said bill for the year 1991—92 and further respondent No. 1 be directed to assess the tax in a cordanoe with law after complying with the directions issued by learned Addi onal District Judge vide Annexure 19-12. The main grievance of the etitioner in this petition is that responden No.1 has not complied with the o der passed by the Additional District Judge on 8.10.1991 whereby learned A ditionai District Judge allowed the appeal and directed respondent No.1 to etermine the tax after hearing the petitioner and the impugned notice (Annexu e P- l3) has been issued on 27. 1 1. 199 1. From the above facts the evance made by the petitioner seems to b just, fair and reasonable, before ending the bill dated 27.11.1991 imposing building tax on the petitioner t e respondent Corporation was required to atieast hear the petitioner about the objections raised by him and to decide the matter in accordance wi law. Therefore, the petition is allowed, impugned notice dated 27.11.19 l (Annexure P-13) is hereby quashed and respondent No.1-Corporation is directed to decide the tax matter oi‘ the petitioner after considering the o ‘ections raised by him and after heating the petitioner as directed by learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 8. lO. 199 1 . Certified copy as per rules. a t i e t