^ -c<f ^- °< ^; iK. Cft 1N THE MIOH GOURT O? mBHyA ^KADESH ^T <7ABAI,PO& , Ho.^orr; W.SG. PgTITION N0, yi990. PSTXTZQMBRt Ateheraj Uuniya son of Bhaawarlal iMniya occ^ipation^ teusiness^ Reside^t o£ Baikxintht Bistriet aaip^r^ VE R SIT 8 9ES^Q )S StSt\ l^ State.of ifedlhya Pradesh flirofugh Additional Collector, Baipur. 2^ Mining Offieert Raip^ir eirole^ Siaipxair<. IN_TNE MATTB& OF AfiZICI^ 226 AM®227 Og COtISTITUtIOg or INDIA f^B IN_TI®M^STER OP XSBIAS STAMP AGfP t899 IN ITS APPI.IC^TXCm TO STAT@ OF M^&iarA Pa^I^SM.' • HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.2102 OF 1988 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PETlTIONER RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Century Textijes and Industries Ltd. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Another WRIT PETITION N0.232 OF 1990 Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Others WRIT PETITION N0.3011 OF 1990 Akheraj Luniya Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Another And WRIT PETITION N0.4398 OF 1989 Akheraj Luniya Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Another (Writ Petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ashish Shrivastava & Shri Harsh Wardhan, Advocates for the petitioners. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Advocate General with Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER rORAU (Passed on this 24th day of June,2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. W.P.Nos.2102/1988, 232/1990, 3011/1990 & 4398/1989, involve the same question of law and common facts and, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. E^^^^-^S' ^-SS; ^^S^ 6. 7. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that these cases are identical to M.P.No.277 of 1987 {Diwan Lime Company Pvt. LimitodJ& Another v. Mining Officer, Satna & Others) and M.P.No.1497 of 1988 (Century Textiles and Industries Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others), which have been decided on 24-6-1999. In Diwan Lime Company Pvt. Limited (supra) the issue of payment of deficit stamp duty was involved. The Court after considering the submission of the, then, State counsel, came to the following conclusion : "10. So far as the part of opportunity of hearing is concemed, it is not denied that the opportunity was not given that /s, what is stated was that no opportunity was required. When adjudication on a point is done, it implies that an opportunity should be given to a person against whom adjudication is done. 1 am of the view that the petitioners having not been given the opportunity, the impugned notices desen/e to be quashed and the same are hereby quashed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is remanded to the Mining Officer for passing an appropriate order according to law after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The security amount, deposited if any, may be refunded and the Bank guarantee, ifany, given by the petitioners, shall stand discharged." Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is no objection if the petitioners are granted opportunity to adjudicate the dispute on the issue of payment of stamp duty. No objection from other side. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of the decision rendered in Diwan Lime Company Pvt. Limited (supra). No order astocosts. __— Gowri Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge