1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10275 OF 2009 Shri Jagdish Prasad Agrawal .. Petitioner Vs The Collector of Thane, & Anr .. Respondents Mr. S.M.Oak i/b Sagar Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr R.M.Patne, AGP, for respondent nos 1 and 2. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 10/12/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Additional Tahasildar (Non Agriculture), by which the petitioner has been directed to pay non agriculture tax and penalty of Rs.1,62,162/-. This order, according to the petitioner, was passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It appears that notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner and it was received by one of the T 2 employees of the petitioner in his restaurant. According to the petitioner, he was not aware about the date of hearing and, therefore, he could not and did not remain present before the Additional Tahasildar on the date fixed for hearing. The Addl. Tahasildar had initially passed the order dated 27.6.2008, which was carried by the petitioner in appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Thane. The Sub Divisional Officer, Thane confirmed the order passed by the Addl.Tahasidlar vide his order dated 24.12.2008. This order of the Sub Divisional Officer was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector (Appeals), Thane. The Deputy Collector (Appeals), Thane allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Addl.Tahasildar dated 27.6.2008 and by the Sub Divisional Officer, Thane dated 24.12.2008 and directed the Addl.Tahasidlar to make fresh inquiry. In pursuance of this order, the order dated 28.10.2009 came to be passed by the Addl Tahasildar, which is impugned in the present writ petition. It is against this backdrop, when I asked Mr Oak, learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether his client is prepared to deposit the amount which he is liable to pay as per the impugned order without prejudice to his rights and contentions and to show his bonafide, on instructions, he submitted that the petitioner is prepared to deposit the said amount and that he may be given 3 an opportunity of being heard before the Addl.Tahasildar. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice. The order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Addl.Tahasildar is set aside. The Addl.Tahasildar shall decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Addl.Tahasildar shall pass reasoned order. The petitioner shall, without prejudice to his rights and contentions and in order to show his bonafides, shall deposit Rs. 1,62,162/-, after deducting an amount of Rs.14,000/- deposited by him earlier, with the Office of the Tahasildar within a period of four weeks from today. The Tahasildar shall hear the matter afresh only after the petitioner deposits the amount as aforestated. With these observations, rule is made absolute in terms of this order. No costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 4