JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Facts are jejune. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. It carries on the business of sale and purchase of grains, oil-seeds, pulses, kirana and bardana as also tax-free commodity like garlic. The petitioner submitted the returns within the time and paid the required tax on the basis of the returns in compliance with the provisions of the Act. The respondents assessed the petitioner for the period November 1, 1978 to October 20, 1979. The assessing authority increased the gross total turnover and also denied the deductions which resulted in enhanced tax liability (annexure P3). The petitioner preferred an appeal to the first and second appellate authorities which proved to be an exercise in futility. The petitioner then approached the State Government under section 39(6) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act through representation, running into 14 pages (annexure P10) as a last resort in the hope of obtaining the relief. This representation resulted in infecundity and was dismissed by one line on February 22, 1986 (annexure P11). Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The respondents have filed the return in oppugnation. 4. I have heard both the sides. 5. The limited contention made before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 (State of M.P.) erred in rejecting the representation by order (annexure P11) without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned counsel has placed reliance on [1984] 56 STC 107 (MP) (Ramchandra Jagannath & Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh) in support of his contention that the application filed under section 39(6) of the aforesaid Act was not liable to be dismissed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. It is not contended before me by the other side that any such opportunity was afforded. The order (annexure P11) thus demonstrably suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice and becomes liable to be dislodged and demolished. 7. The aforesaid decision relied upon by the petitioner clearly supports the contention that the order is not sustainable in law. 8. The order (annexure P11) thus demonstrably suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice and becomes liable to be dislodged and demolished. 7. The aforesaid decision relied upon by the petitioner clearly supports the contention that the order is not sustainable in law. 8. In AIR 1973 SC 834 (State of Punjab v. K. R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta) and in AIR 1994 SCC 2480 (Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India) it is held that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed. It is thus clear that no order adverse to the party, should normally be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to that party. 9. Applying the aforesaid principles of law I am satisfied that the order annexure P11 cannot be sustained in law. 10. In the circumstances, I dispose of this petition with directions as under : (a) The order dated February 22, 1986 (annexure P11) passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed. (b) Sequel to this, the application (annexure P10) is brought back to life and respondent No. 1 is directed to consider and decide the same after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 6 months from today. 11. This petition is thus allowed in part in terms indicated above with no order as to costs. Security amount, if any shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification. Petition partly allowed.