Remanded

Ramautar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2019WRIC/24358/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Responding to a challenge against a fine notice for using prohibited polythene bags, the Court allowed the petitioner to contest the alleged illegally imposed demand after a prior deposit. The order directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's objections within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is entitled to post a hearing; the order dated 19.06.2019 remains in abeyance for eight weeks pending the disposal of the objection.

Ramautar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24358 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ramautar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Sengar

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 19.6.2019 by which he has been directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- as fine for using prohibited polythene bags. Assailing the order-cum-demand dated 19.6. 2019 it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier been imposed similar fine on 20th September, 2018 and had deposited Rs. 10,000/- against the same receipt copy whereof has also been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Now, therefore, he submits that again demand Rs. 10,000/- towards the earlier fine is absolutely illegal. He further submits that the notice straightway directs the petitioner to deposit the amount without prior notice of show cause. He has drawn our attention towards documents/letter addressed to the Station Officer, Police Station Jewar dated 12.6.2019 which was never served upon the petitioner.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to imposing fine atleast petitioner ought to have been heard and reiterates that he has not been using banned polythene bags and yet he has been charged with the offence only because of the reasons that the respondents developed a prima facie opinion against the petitioner regarding doubts relating to earlier alleged deposit of the amount.

¶8

Per contra the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is that though the petitioner was issued legal notice but he managed to escape the site of inspection and this is how deposite of Rs. 10,000/- was infact not made.

¶9

Since specific plea has been taken in para 15 of the writ petition that no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the notice dated 19.6.2019 whereunder a demand of Rs. 25,000/- has been raised and includes the amount Rs. 10,000/- earlier deposited by the petitioner and the same has not been specifically denied in

¶10

paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, the petitioner is entitled to at a hearing may be post-decisional one.

¶11

In such above view of the matters and as the disputed facts are involved, we are disposing of this petition with a direction to the Respondent No.4 to consider the objection of the petitioner, if any, submitted by the petitioner within two weeks from today and take an appropriate decision thereupon within a further period of four weeks. For a period of eight weeks from today, or the order if any passed, as directed above, the order dated 19.6.2019 whereby demand has been raised against the petitioner, shall remain in abeyance.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.11.2019 Manish Tripathi

¶13

(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)

Ramautar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramautar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Swastik Construction Company Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

M/S Dileep Repairing Works Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and 3 Others

Mohd. Uzair Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Rafia Habeeb Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Ishwar Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others