JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business, inter alia, of manufacture and sale of all kinds of potteries and ceramic items like mugs, cups and plates, etc., which are manufactured at Khurja situated in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner is registered under the relevant sales tax laws of Uttar Pradesh. In view of the sales office at Indore, the petitioner applied for registration in Madhya Pradesh also. The applications seeking registration under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 were rejected ex parte on March 5, 1985. The notices were not properly served on the petitioner. The petitioner, however, submitted fresh application under section 16 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and section 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on August 16, 1985. The petitioner received the notice on October 29, 1985 to appear on November 6, 1985 (annexure A). The petitioner submitted requisite information. The respondent No. 1 (Sales Tax Officer, Indore) however, required some more information and ordered that the same be furnished by November 8, 1985 (annexure B). The petitioner prayed for extension of time. Instead of granting time, the application for grant of registration was rejected on the ground of failure to supply requisite information (annexure B). The respondent No. 1 sent the letter to the petitioner on November 18, 1985, received on January 7, 1986, intimating rejection of the application (annexure D). The petitioner submitted the revision petitions before the respondent No. 2 (Deputy Commissioner) which were registered as DCR 165/86 Provincial and DCR 28/86 Central. These revision petitions were dismissed by common order on July 14, 1986, by respondent No. 2 (annexure E). Aggrieved by the orders annexures B, D and E, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking quashment of these orders. 3. The respondents have filed the return in opposition. 4. I have heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner about additional information and it is only when it appeared on November 6, 1985, that its representative was asked to submit more information by November 8, 1985. 3. The respondents have filed the return in opposition. 4. I have heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner about additional information and it is only when it appeared on November 6, 1985, that its representative was asked to submit more information by November 8, 1985. According to him, this was not proper opportunity to meet the requirement and submit the information. He submitted that respondent No. 1 erred in law in closing the matter on November 8, 1985 and passing the adverse order of rejection of the application. He also submitted that the revisional order is equally infirm and vitiated due to non-consideration of this aspect of the case. 6. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand supported the orders. 7. It cannot be gainsaid that such applications required serious consideration and the applicant deserved reasonable opportunity of hearing. In AIR 1989 SC 997 (State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh), it is held as under - "Judicial review under article 226 cannot be converted into an appeal. Judicial review is directed, not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process. When the issues raised in judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant, or neglecting to take into account of relevant factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision, the judicial review of the decision-making process, includes examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors." 8. A perusal of the orders (annexures B, D and E) demonstrates infirmity and vitiation on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. In the result, I conclude that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing on his application submitted for registration. A perusal of the orders (annexures B, D and E) demonstrates infirmity and vitiation on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. In the result, I conclude that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing on his application submitted for registration. Accordingly, I allow this petition in part and quash the order dated November 8, 1985 (annexure B) to the extent of rejection of the application dated August 16, 1985, submitted for registration, letter dated November 18, 1985 (annexure D) and revisional order dated July 14, 1986 (annexure E) and direct the respondent No. 1 (Sales Tax Officer, Indore, Circle 4) to restore and revive the application dated August 16, 1985 and consider and decide the same afresh in conformity with law after noticing and giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this behalf. 10. As the matter is quite old, the respondent No. 1 is also directed to make an endeavor to decide the application within a period of six months from today, under intimation to the petitioner. 11. This petition, thus, stands allowed in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. The security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification. Petition partly allowed.