1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.886 OF 2010 (ICICI Bank Limited vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : APRIL 6, 2010 Heard Shri Anjan De, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Bodade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1, and Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioners is against issuance of notices dated 20.11.2009, 5.12.2009 and 1.1.2010 by the respondent no.2 Corporation. 2 Shri Anjan De, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that notice dated 20.11.2009 is a show cause notice issued by the respondent Corporation whereby petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action of ten times penal duty should not be imposed against the petitioner Bank as per Octroi Rule 14(f) and 14(h) for non-compliance of procedure applicable while importing gold coins into city. It is contended that the petitioner submitted its explanation pursuant to the show cause notice dated 20.11.2009 issued by the respondent Corporation, on 25.11.2009 and the intimation though received by the petitioner on 2.12.2009 that hearing was scheduled before the Authority on 4.12.2009, however, because of shortage of time, the petitioner was unable to engage service of Lawyer and prepare the case and could not appear before the respondent Corporation on 4.12.2009 and, therefore, petitioner communicated to the respondent Authority on telephone its inability to appear before the Authority on 4.12.2009. It is submitted that the respondent Corporation issued the bill for penal octroi duty dated 5.12.2009 as well as notice of 3 demand dated 1.1.2010 without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 20.11.2009. It is prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already given cheque of Rs.44,42,224/- dated 19.2.2010 to the respondent Corporation under protest and on 22.2.2010 this Court granted ad interim stay in terms of prayer clause (b) of the petition. Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4, has not disputed that vide show cause notice dated 20.11.2009, three days' time was given to the petitioner to submit explanation. It is also not disputed that communication whereby petitioner was asked to appear before the Authorities on 4.12.2009 was received by the petitioner on 2.12.2009. It is contended that the respondent Corporation after considering the explanation of the petitioner issued the bill for penal octroi dated 5.12.2009 and notice of demand dated 1.1.2010 since the petitioner failed to appear on 4.12.2009. 4 We have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing. As per show cause notice dated 20.11.2009, time of three days was given to the petitioner for submitting explanation and the communication, which was received by the petitioner whereby petitioner was asked to appear before the Authorities within two days and, therefore, in our view, the petitioner was not given reasonable time to defend itself. Hence, we feel it appropriate to direct the respondent Corporation to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 20.11.2009. The petitioner to appear before the Authorities on 20.4.2010 at 11 o'clock. The petitioner is entitled to file explanation/reply in addition to the explanation/reply already submitted to the Authorities. The respondent Corporation shall take appropriate steps and conclude the issue afresh in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard within a period of three weeks. Needless 5 to mention that bill for penal octroi duty dated 5.12.2009 and notice of demand dated 1.1.2010 shall not come in the way of re-consideration of the issue by the Corporation. With these observations and direction, the petition is disposed of. The interim order dated 22.2.2010 passed by this Court shall continue till decision is taken by the respondent Corporation. Copy of this order authenticated by the Court Sheristedar be given to the learned Counsel for the parties. JUDGE JUDGE khj