Allowed

Tara Chandra Sahu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2019WRIC/33979/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging recovery citations for damages imposed for keeping cattle on municipal road side. Court quashed recoveries due to lack of proper service of notice and denial of opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Quashed recovery citations dated 25.07.2019 and 05.09.2019 with liberty to pass fresh orders after due service of notice and opportunity of hearing.

Tara Chandra Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33979 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Tara Chandra Sahu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Krishan Tripathi,Vibhav Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

The petitioner has received two recovery citations dated 25.07.2019 for Rs. 1,50,000/- and another dated 05.09.2019 for Rs. 1,00,000/-.

¶6

The aforesaid recoveries have been issued against the petitioner as he has failed to obey the orders of Nagar Nigam not to keep cattle on the road side and to shift them outside the municipal limit failing which he would be liable to payment of Rs. 10,000/- per day as damages.

¶7

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in issuing the aforesaid recoveries, no procedure was followed for determination of the amount of damages sought to be recovered. In fact, petitioner has not been served with any show-cause notice and was never given any opportunity of hearing before finalizing the quantum of damages.

¶8

Sri Kautilya, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam on instructions has produced before us the notice dated 05.04.2018 which required the petitioner to stop tying cattle on the road side failing which penalty shall be imposed.

¶9

However, a perusal of the said notice reveals that it has not been served upon the petitioner. It is not alleged that the said notice was sent to the petitioner by registered post rather it was sent by the process server but there is no endorsement of receipt/refusal in the presence of any witness.

¶10

Thus, the service of the aforesaid notice upon the petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶11

Accordingly, when the notice has not been served, it is evident that the petitioner has been denied proper opportunity of hearing in the matter for imposing the penalty sought to be recovered by the impugned recoveries.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned recoveries are not sustainable in law.

¶13

Accordingly, recovery citations dated 25.07.2019 and 05.09.2019 are quashed with liberty to Nagar Nigam to pass fresh orders after due service of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶14

It is provided that the petitioner would appear before the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj on 18.11.2019 whereupon fresh proceedings in relation to the above subject would commence and would be completed in accordance with law.

¶15

The writ petition is allowed .

¶16

Order Date :- 7.11.2019 Nirmal Sinha

Tara Chandra Sahu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Chandra Sahu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jay Singh and 49 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

M/S N.S. Packaging and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjay Shankar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sushil Kumar and 11 Others Vs U.P. Public Service Commission Prayagraj and Another

Shweta Chowdhery Vs U.P Public Service Commission, 10 Kasturba Gandhi Marg and Another

Sangram Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others