IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 15086 of 2009 Between: M/s. P.M. Telelinks Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956, Having its Secunderabad, Rep by its Managing Partner, Sri G.P. Surana S/o. Late Shri Guilabchand Surana, Aged: 58 yrs, Occ: Managing Director, R/o. Secunderabad. ... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise ( Appeal ) 7th Floor, L.B.Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order Direction of Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in not furnishing a spare copy of the order in Appeal bearing No. 58/2006 ( H-I ) CE dated 21-09-2006 passed by the respondent herein to the Petitioner despite both oral and written representations/letters dated 02.03.2007, 03.04.2007, 08.06.2007 and legal notice dated 28.01.2009 caused through counsel, as illegal arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice, fair play and equity besides being contrary to right to know the orders passed in an appeal filed by the Petitioner herein and consequently direct the respondent to furnish the same so as to enable the writ petitioner to pursue further remedies as available under the law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VIKASH KUMAR CHAND Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED. The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. Though a copy of the petition has been served upon the learned advocate appearing for the respondent, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent viz., the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals). 2. The grievance, which has been made in the petition, is with regard to not supplying a copy of order dated 21.9.2006 passed by the respondent in spite of several representations made to him by the petitioner. 3. It appears that the petitioner wants to have another copy of order dated 21.9.2006 and, therefore, a request was made to the respondent to supply another copy. As stated hereinabove, in spite of several representations, another copy of order dated 21.9.2006 has not been served to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court. 4. We do not see any reason for not supplying a copy of order dated 21.9.2006 to the petitioner. Possibly, the respondent might be having an apprehension that furnishing a copy of the order might give a fresh period of limitation to the petitioner for filing an appeal against the said order. 5. Looking to the facts of the case, we direct the respondent to furnish a copy of order dated 21.9.2006 passed in Appeal No.58/2006 (H- I) CE to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order by the respondent. The respondent may, however, state on the copy of the said order that it has been furnished in pursuance of an order of this Court and may be marked as a duplicate copy so that the petitioner may not get further period of limitation, if it wants to challenge the afore- stated order. 6. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.100/- to the respondent along with a copy of this order towards usual charges. 7. The excess amount, if any, shall be returned to the petitioner as soon as possible, preferably along with the copy of order dated 21.9.2006. 8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ July 28, 2009 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J Note: Issue C.C. by 31.7.2009 (By order) svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}