THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.17693 OF 2009 DATED: 15.09.2009 Between: Nico Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Perecherla, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Sri V. Lakshmi Narayana .. Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Registration and Stamps Department, rep. by the District Registrar, Guntur, Guntur District and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Heard both sides. It appears, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.14 of 2005 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 11.02.2004, against the respondents 2 and 3 herein. When the said agreement of sale dated 11.02.2004 was sought to be marked as an exhibit, the respondents 2 and 3 raised an objection that the same cannot be marked, as it requires sufficient stamp duty and penalty. According to the petitioner, there is no deficiency of stamp duty and the possession of the property covered under the said agreement of sale was not delivered and, therefore, the stamp duty of Rs.100/- paid by it is sufficient. However, the learned Judge referred the document to the 1st respondent- District Registrar, Guntur, for impounding the same and the petitioner was directed to take steps for payment of deficit stamp duty. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 23.06.2009 to the petitioner informing the amount payable towards deficit stamp duty and penalty and asked the petitioner to appear before him in person or through advocate, within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, to put forth its case. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner is stated to have submitted its objections, vide letter dated 29.06.2009, and requested the 1st respondent to provide it an opportunity of personal hearing through advocate. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that, without providing such an opportunity of personal hearing to it and without considering the objections raised by it, the 1st respondent addressed the impugned letter dated 02.07.2009, requiring it to remit the deficit stamp duty and penalty as per the earlier notice. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to set aside the impugned letter. A perusal of the impugned letter dated 02.07.2009 makes it clear that neither the petitioner was provided an opportunity of personal hearing through its advocate nor the objections raised by it in its letter dated 29.06.2009 have been discussed. Thus, the impugned letter suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice and, on that ground alone, it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated 02.07.2009 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to provide the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing through its advocate and then pass appropriate orders as per law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 15th September, 2009. IBL