R M PALANISAMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for and quash the notice, dated 28.12.2005, in Na.Ka.No.1937/98A, issued by the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner has stated that he was granted a licence for the sale of arrack at shop No.22/81, Kangayampalayam, for the period from 16.7.1981 to 15.7.1982, having been the successful bidder in the auction conducted by the respondent. However, the petitioner had surrendered the licence, on 28.11.2001, as he had suffered heavy losses in the business. The deposit amount of Rs.46,225/- is still with the authorities concerned. While so, the respondent had issued the impugned notice, dated 28.12.2005, demanding the payment of Rs.2,51,564/-, payable by the petitioner, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the only contention made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order had been passed, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, it is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Since, the passing of the impugned order by the respondent is contrary to the principles of natural justice, it is liable to be set aside. Hence, he had prayed that the impugned notice of the respondent, dated 28.12.2005, may be set aside, leaving it open to the respondent to pass an appropriate order, afresh, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.