Disposed

M/S Jai Maa Kali Int Bhatth Neebu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2020WRIC/5266/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a royalty demand notice and directed decision of a representation. Bench disposed of petition without merits, directing authorities to decide representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to decide petitioner's representation within four weeks by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

M/S Jai Maa Kali Int Bhatth Neebu Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5266 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Jai Maa Kali Int Bhatth Neebu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

¶7

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned demand notice dated 17.11.2018 issued by the respondent no. 4.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measure against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 17.11.2018 for recovering the amount mentioned in the aforesaid notice.

¶9

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the application made by the petitioner within stipulated period, which may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶10

(iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶11

(v) Award the costs of petition in favour of the petitioner.

¶12

It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the impugned demand notice dated 17.11.2018, the petitioner who is running a brick-klin has been directed to deposit royalty amount payable by him pertaining to the financial years 201516, 2016-17 and 2017-18. He further contended that the petitioner has not run the brick-klin during the year 2015-16 and hence, he is not liable to pay any royalty for the said period. He lastly contended that the petitioner raising all his grievances which have been taken by him in this writ petition, has already filed a representation before the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Ballia on 29.01.2020, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, but the said representation has not been decided till date. Although, in the meantime, the petitioner has been coerced by the respondents into depositing a sum of Rs.1 lac on 12.02.2020

¶13

with the respondent no.2.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent no. 2 be directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner before him, expeditiously, within a specified period after taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been forced to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lac before the respondent no. 2 on 12.02.2020.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that he has no objection to the grant as to prayer made by the petitioner's counsel.

¶16

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merit, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation filed by the petitioner before him (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him by passing a speaking and reasoned order and if the petitioner is found liable to pay any amount payable as royalty the same shall be assessed after taking into consideration the amount already deposited by him.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.2.2020 P.S.Parihar

M/S Jai Maa Kali Int Bhatth Neebu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jai Maa Kali Int Bhatth Neebu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neetu Mittal Vs Brajesh Kumar Agarwal Alias Mintu

The Deputy Chief Engineer Construction-Ii Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Dharmwati Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kishan Pal @ Keshan Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Vardan Construction Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Durga Dutt Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others