JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of order dated 23.1.1991 (Annexure 'P-12') passed by respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 59/89-90 whereby confirming the order dated 4.4.1990 (Annexure 'P-8') passed by respondent No. 2 in case No. 32/89-90 imposing Entertainment Duty amounting to Rs. 1,00,698.15 Ps. and penalty thereon. The petition was admitted for final hearing on 25.2.1991 and recovery proceedings were stayed. The respondent have filed their return. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a very short submission that on 29.1.1990 by Annexure 'P-1' a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner for assessment of tax under section 4C of the M.P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936 (for short 'the Act') and he was directed to appear on 18.2.1990, which was the date of Sunday. The petitioner had already filed reply on 12.2.1990. Thereafter by another notice dated 26.3.1990 the case was fixed for hearing on 4.4.1990. On that date petitioner could not appear because of some death in his relation and, therefore, he had sent one application dated 2.4.1990 by Regd. post for adjournment and a telegram for adjournment was also sent but the case was not adjourned and order was passed on 4.4.1990 imposing the duty and penalty. The short submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was not provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing and despite his application as well as telegram the case was not adjourned and the order was passed. The petitioner had also filed appeal against the order of respondent No. 2 before the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore but by order dated 23.1.1991 the aforesaid appeal was dismissed by respondent No. 3. The submission of the learned counsel is that before the appellate Court also this ground was raised that opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner as per principles of natural justice, but the learned appellate Court has also failed to consider the same. In reply, it has been admitted by the respondents that they had received the telegram on the same day i.e. on 4.4.1990 but it was received at 4 O' clock in the office and the written application dated 2.4.1990 was also received in the office on 5.4.1990. In reply, it has been admitted by the respondents that they had received the telegram on the same day i.e. on 4.4.1990 but it was received at 4 O' clock in the office and the written application dated 2.4.1990 was also received in the office on 5.4.1990. The copy of the telegram, which is filed as Annexure 'R-1' by the respondents, clearly shows that the telegram was received in the office on 4.4.1990 and the same was entered in the Dak Register on 4.4.1990. Therefore, from this document Annexure 'R-1' it is clear that a request was made by the petitioner for adjournment on account of death in his relation but the same was not considered. From the perusal of the record it is clear that copy of the telegram was received in the office of respondent No. 2 on 4.4.1990, but from the return or documents it is not clear what orders were passed on the request of adjournment and why the same was not considered, when a request was made on the ground of death of relative. In the return no justification is pleaded by the respondent for not considering the telegram and a request for adjournment. In view of the fact that on an earlier occasion i.e. on 18.2.1990 it was Sunday when the petitioner was called upon to file reply and on 4.4.1990 the request for adjournment was not considered without any valid reason. In the return no justification is pleaded by the respondent for not considering the telegram and a request for adjournment. In view of the fact that on an earlier occasion i.e. on 18.2.1990 it was Sunday when the petitioner was called upon to file reply and on 4.4.1990 the request for adjournment was not considered without any valid reason. Section 4C of the Act reads as under : "4-C. Power to impose penalty -- If on an inspection of a place of entertainment or after examination of the records, accounts and stocks of stamps maintained by a proprietor, the Excise Commissioner or any other officer as may be authorised by the State Government in this behalf, comes to the conclusion that entertainments duty or advertisement tax payable under this Act has been evaded by the proprietor, he may, after giving the proprietor a reasonable opportunity of being heard, assess to the best of his judgment the duty or tax payable by the proprietor for a period not exceeding thirty days immediately preceding as if the evasion subsisted for the whole of such period and he may direct that the proprietor shall pay by way of penalty in addition to the amount of duty or tax so assessed, as the case may be, a sum equal to half that amount for the first such evasion in a calendar year, and a sum not exceeding twice but not less than half that amount, for the second or subsequent evasion in that year." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, section 4-C of the Act, 1936 clearly provides that the order can only be passed after giving the proprietor a reasonable opportunity of being heard. There is no justification on record about the refusal of adjournment on 4.4.1990 which clearly amounts to violation of a right of reasonable opportunity of hearing. The provisions regarding providing of reasonable opportunity of hearing is one of the integral part of the principles of natural justice and the concepts of administrative law. The rule of 'audi alteram partem' is an effective rule of law of natural justice devised by the Courts to ensure that an authority arrives at a just decision and it is calculated to act as a healthy check on the abuse or misuse of power by the authority which means no man should be condemned unheard or both the sides must be heard before passing any order. It is well settled that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The appearance of injustice is denial of justice. In view of the aforesaid factual position and the settled legal position, this petition is allowed and the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 4.4.1990 (Annexure 'P-8') is hereby set-aside alongwith the order in appeal dated 23.1.1991 (Annexure 'P-12') and it is directed that the respondent No. 2 shall hold an enquiry in the matter and reassess the tax payable by the petitioner after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. The respondent No. 2 shall hold the enquiry within a period of sixty days and pass an appropriate order in the matter. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs.