Petitioner sought quashing of a notice regarding a petrol pump he had sold to Respondent No.3. The Court declined to examine merits, leaving issues open, noting the petitioner is not affected by the notice.
Petition disposed of; issues left open for consideration.
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. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12981 of 2022
Petitioner :- Munesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Kuldeep Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anand Tiwari,Anand Tewari
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit.
The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of notice dated 2.2.2022, issued by respondent no.2-Khurja Development Authority to the petitioner and for a further direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to create any hindrance in running of Petrol Pump by the petitioner as a Commission Agent.
According to the petitioner, he was having a dealership of Indian Oil Corporation Limited which was being run in the name and style of Master Ji Filling Station. Subsequently, it was sold to Indian Oil Corporation Limitedrespondent no.3 by sale deed dated 29.5.2018. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3. The petitioner is running the Petrol Pump on commission basis on behalf of respondent no.3.
The case of the petitioner is that since he has sold the Petrol Pump to respondent no.3, therefore, the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to submit compounding plan in respect of the Petrol Pump is wholly illegal.
As the fact that the petitioner had sold the Petrol Pump to respondent no.3 is not in dispute, therefore, in our opinion, the petitioner is not going to be affected by the impugned notice even if it has been incidentally issued to him. It is pointed out that respondent no.2 has already issued a similar notice to respondent no.3.
Consequently, we decline to examine the issues at the behest of the petitioner. We leave the issues open for consideration in some appropriate proceeding.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 23.9.2022 sfa/
(Jayant Banerji, J) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)
Digitally signed by SYED FAHEEM AHMAD Date: 2022.09.27 09:35:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Munesh Kumar Singh
State Of U P
Khurja Development Authority
Manoj Kumar Gupta
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
