The petitioner challenged an ex-parte demand notice for arrears of land revenue. The court, without expressing an opinion on merits, disposed of the petition by granting time to file an objection, directing no coercive action for six weeks.
No coercive action to be taken for six weeks pending petitioner's objection to provisional assessment order.
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. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3535 of 2020
Petitioner :- Monu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer :
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned ex-parte demand notice no. 3033 dated 17.10.2019 of Rs. 6,22,621/- were issued by the respondent no. 3 address to the respondent no. 2 for making the recovery as land revenue from the petitioner.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and his subordinate not to take any coercive action in pursuant to the impugned demand notice no. 3033 dated 17.10.2019 against the petitioner during the pendency of present writ petition (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).
(c) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) To award the cost of petition in favour of the petitioner."
Following order was passed by this court in this case on 13.02.2020 :
"Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Court today, is kept on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer :
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned ex-parte demand notice No. 1906 dated 13.08.2019 of Rs. 6,22,621/- issued by the respondent no. 3 addressing the respondent no. 2 for making the recovery as land revenue from the petitioner.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 and his subordinate not to take any coercive action pursuant to the impugned demand notice No. 1906 dated 13.08.2019 against the petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition (Annexure 1 to the writ petition).
(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned demand notice which has been issued by the respondent no. 3 requiring the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs. 6,22,621/- purporting to have been assessed under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 without any provisional assessment made by him, is per se illegal.
Specific averments in this regard has been made by the petitioner in paragrpah 4 of the supplementary affidavit which has been filed in the Court today.
Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 prays for and is allowed a week's time to seek instructions in the matter.
List this matter on 20th February, 2020.
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned demand notice."
When this matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has supplied the copy of the checking report as well as the original assessment order to the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and has submitted that the petitioner may be granted some time to file his objection against the provisional assessment order before the respondent no. 3 with a
corresponding direction to him to pass a final order in this matter within a specified period.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file his objection against the provisional assessment order before the respondent no. 3 within a period of two weeks from today. In case, any such objection is filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 3 along with certified copy of this order, he shall pass appropriate order thereon after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a further period of two weeks from the date of filing of objection by the petitioner before him.
For the period of six weeks from today or till the petitioner's objection is decided, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned demand notice no. 3033 dated 17.10.2019 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) which shall abide by with the order which may be pass by the respondent no. 3 on the petitioner's objection. Order Date :- 20.2.2020 SA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to stay coercive action against a provisional demand notice while objecting to it.
Whether this writ petition requires disposal on merits or an interlocutory order granting time for objection.
Monu
State Of U.P.
Bala Krishna Narayana
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
