file a detailed show-cause reply. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in reply to the letters submitted by the Petitioner on dated 29.04.2023, the Tahasildar, Dharmasala, Opposite Party No.3 has given intimation to the Petitioner that the documents can be availed through RTI Act, 2005 and thereafter without affording any opportunity, straight away issued the demand notice dated 10.05.2023 directing the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.8,63,33,919/- towards royalty and penalty within thirty days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the impugned demand notice is illegal and violative of the principle of natural justice and the documents sought for by the Petitioner were available with the authorities and it should have been supplied to the Petitioner to give a detailed show-cause reply and an opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to the Petitioner before issuing the impugned demand notice. In support of submission, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dharamapal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, (2015) 8 SCC 519; T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2022) 8 SCC 162; and Pradyumna Pattnaik Vs. State of Oidsha, 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 4020. It is submitted that in absence of evidential material, the Petitioner is potentially prejudiced and the action of the authority is, therefore, not only unfair but also flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. Referring to Takano (Supra), learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the relevant part of the report pertaining to the Petitioner is not disclosed/confronted, the authority
