IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERr «W e.‘ / RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (C) N04 35% OF 2007 Century Textiles & Industries Limited (Century Cement), A Company having registered Under Company’s Act, 1956 Having its registered office at Century Bhavan, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worii, Mumbai (Maharasthra) &iocal office At P. O. Baikunth - 498 116, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through authorized signatory And constituent attorney Shri N. M. Singhvi. Senior Vicev President (Commercial), Century Cement, Baikunth, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Mineral ResourcesMantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur [Chhattisgarh] Collector (Mining), District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) /3. Deputy Director (Mining) Collectorate, Raipur (CG) WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 22/61 OF THE CONSTITUTION CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF /1. 2, VERSUS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1058 0f 2007 Century Textiles & Industries Limited (Century Cement) VERSUS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. resent: Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 30t day of September, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this case is identical to M.P. 1497 of 1988 (Century Textiles and Industries Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others), yvhich has been decided on 24/06/1999 and the learned counsel fo‘r..the State does not dispute the fact that the question involved is identical; The question is that is that before making demand in regard to the deficit registration fee and additional stamp duty no opportunity was given to the petitioner and on the basis of some audit report, which was not supplied to the petitioner, the impugned demand has been made. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned memo dated 19-12-2006 (Annexure — P/l) is quashed. However, it would be open to the concerned authority to take fresh action after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, in accordance with law. l l Sd/ ‘Satish K.hgnihotri ‘ Judge P l