Dismissed

Shamsul Arfin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2021WTAX/663/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition seeking quashing of an order by the Zonal Officer. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the appellate authority under Section 472 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, despite highly disputed facts.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Shamsul Arfin Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 663 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Shamsul Arfin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Firoz Haider,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bipin Bihari Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel representing the State.

¶6

By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 03.9.2020 passed by the Zonal Officer, Vernapul, district Varanasi, respondent No. 4 and also for a direction to the respondent authority not to take any action in pursuance of the order dated 03.9.2020.

¶7

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that against the demand notice dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Tax Superintendent, Vernapal Zone Nagar Nigam, district Varanasi, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ Tax Petition No. 1310 of 2019 and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2019 disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the respondentauthority to decide the claim of the petitioner within six weeks. In pursuance whereof, the petitioner moved before the respondent-authority, who has taken decision by the order impugned.

¶8

Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.9.2020, which was passed in pursuance of the order of this Court, the petitioner has again approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

¶9

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection that against the order dated 03.9.2020, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order before the appellate authority under Section 472 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959. Since, highly disputed question of facts are

¶10

involved in this case and in view of availability of alternative remedy, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.1.2021 Ishrat

Shamsul Arfin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamsul Arfin 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Kamla Stone Works Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vipin Dangi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Dev Priya Products Private Limited Vs Union of India and 06 Others

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Shanti Rice Mill Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others