1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.753/2009 The Indian Express Ltd.& Ors. PETITIONERS VS. State of Maharashtra & Ors. RESPONDENTS Mr.Dinyar Madon ,Sr.Counsel with Mr.Firdosh Pooniwalla , Ms.Poorvi Kamani and Mr.Vinayak Shete ,Advocates for petitioners Ms.Geeta Shastri,AGP for State CORAM : J.N.PATEL, & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : 8TH MAY,2009. P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. Prima facie this Court is satisfied that the respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act,1923 for the purpose of assessing 2 the liability of the petitioners in respect of payment of entertainment duty , under the said Act. Therefore, we called upon the learned A.G.P. to seek instructions from the officer, who is present in the court ,as to whether the State is prepared to issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioners and after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, pass an order of assessment. The learned A.G.P. after seeking instructions from the officer, respondent no.3, says that respondent no.3 would issue show cause notice to the petitioners within period of one week. Mr.Madon,the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners states on receipt of notice the petitioners would file their reply to show cause notice alongwith the copies of the documents on which they want to place reliance within two weeks from the date of receipt of show cause notice. Thereafter respondent no.3 would proceed to hear the parties by fixing the date of hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act,1923. 2] Learned A.G.P. says that respondent no.3 would 3 take up the matter for hearing on 2nd June,2009 at 11. hrs.. 3] We record our appreciation for the fairness shown by respondent no.3 in the matter in view of the fact that respondent no.3 has agreed to hear the petitioners afresh. In view of the above , The impugned order dated 12/3/2009 is quashed and set aside. We make it clear that the proceedings or orders which preceded the impugned order dated 12/3/2009 will be reconsidered by respondent no.3 during the course of hearing as we keep all the issues and contentions raised in the petition open so as to enable the parties to present their respective case for the purpose of assessment of entertainment duty . We expect the petitioners to co-operate with respondent no.3 in disposing this matter as expeditiously as 4 possible and should not seek un-necessary adjournment on flimsy grounds. In case any adverse orders are passed against the petitioners ,respondent no.3 would not take any coercive steps during the period the petitioners are entitled to prefer an appeal against the assessment order passed by respondent no.3. We dispose of this petition accordingly with liberty to the parties to approach this Court if any contingency arises. (J.N.Patel,J.) (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)