A R K ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned.

(2.) EVEN though various averments have been made and many grounds had been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned demand notice/bill in respect of the peak hour penalty has been issued by the third respondent, without due notice being given to the petitioner and without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(3.) MR.R.Murali, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, MR.A.Selvendran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and MR.J.Ravindran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent, have not refuted the claims made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. However, they had submitted that if this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned demand notice/bill of the third respondent, liberty may be granted to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders, afresh, after due notice is issued to the petitioner.