This court modified an order requiring the petitioner to deposit 50% of a fine, stipulating that the deposit could be via security other than cash or bank guarantee, and remitted the matter to District Judge for final disposal.
Order requiring deposition of 50% fine modified to allow security other than cash/bank guarantee.
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. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12224 of 2020
Petitioner :- Hasinu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Additional District Magistrate (Administration) by his order dated 13.12.2019 has imposed fine upon the petitioner amounting to Rs.50,000/-. It is urged that statutory appeal filed against such order before the District Judge, Moradabad has already been entertained with the condition that half of the amount of fine shall be deposited within a month. It is submitted that the direction to deposit half of the fine is not liable to be sustained in the facts of the present case inasmuch as none of the grounds urged in support of the petitioner's objection of the notice has been dealt with and the statutory appeal is also not being considered. It is also contended that the report relied upon against the petitioner is also sketchy and no specific violation has been pointed out in the order itself.
Petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel.
Since the appeal preferred by the petitioner is already pending consideration before the District Judge concerned, therefore, this Court is not required to express any opinion on the contentions raised before this Court which are yet to be examined in appeal. In the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to provide that in case petitioner furnishes security to the extent of half of the disputed amount, other than cash and bank guarantee, his appeal shall be heard finally on merits. The District Judge, concerned is requested to expeditiously decide the appeal without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. The order passed in appeal requiring the petitioner to deposit 50% of the fine stands modified, accordingly. Writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.9.2020 Abhishek Singh
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hasinu
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
