This writ challenge sought to quash a demand notice for a licence fee on railway land, arguing eviction proceedings under the 1971 Act made the demand impermissible. The court found no such provision and dismissed the petition as misconceived.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 50234 of 2004
Petitioner :- Shyam Narain Mehrotra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Bhatia,Manish Tandon,Ravi Kant,Tarun Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Gautam Chaudhary,Govind Saran,Kartikey Saran
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Order Date :- 13.8.2019 KA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a demand notice for outstanding licence fee is impermissible when eviction proceedings are initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971?
Whether there is any statutory provision under which an outstanding licence fee cannot be demanded when eviction proceedings are pending?
Shyam Narain Mehrotra
State Of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
