Partly allowed

Subhash C. Sehgal v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Bombay HC13 Jan 2009WP/2363/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order levying octroi on cream, contending violation of natural justice. The High Court set aside the impugned order, directed a proper hearing, and instructed the respondents to pass a fresh order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 3rd May, 2008 set aside; respondents directed to give proper hearing and pass fresh order within four weeks.

Subhash C. Sehgal Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 2363 OF 2008

¶3

.. Mr. Subhash Chander Sehgal Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

State of Maharashtra and others

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

Mr. V.N. Kantawala i/by M/s. M.M. Legal Associates for the petitioner. Ms. G.S. Joglekar for the BMC.

¶8

Ms. Uma Palsuledesai, Assistant Government Pleader for the State.

¶9

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶10

DATED : 13TH JANUARY, 2009

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

¶13

that the matter was being heard by the authorities of the respondents

¶14

and by letter dated 8^th May, 2008, the advocate for the petitioner has specifically recorded that the matter was adjourned for directions by the authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner has neither received any communication nor the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner

¶15

has received the order dated 3^rd May, 2008 which reads as under:

¶16

OCT/844/CSI II “Office of the

¶17

Dy. Assessor & Collector (Octroi) Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika Shree Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Market Building, 3^rd Floor, Near Ramabai Ambedkar Marg, Mumbai-400001.

¶18

3 MAY 2008

¶19

¶20

M/s. M.M.Legal Associates, 24/25, Esplanade Mansion, 4^th Floor, M.G. Road, Near Kala Ghoda, Mumbai 400 023.

¶21

Sub: Levy of Octroi.

¶22

Gentlemen,

¶23

Ref: Your letter under No.Ozone/Octroi MMLA-001 dt. 7.11.07.

¶24

With reference to your abovecited letter, I have to inform you hearing in the matter was given to your clients on 26.2.08 and the article No Marks' Cream has been held liable to octroi @ 7% advl. Under tariff Item No.3304-9910 of present Octroi Schedule H' appended to MMC Act.

¶25

Yours faithfully,

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Dy. Assessor & Collector (Octroi)”

¶28

The contention raised is that it is violative of principles of

¶29

natural justice as well as it suffers from effect of non-application of

¶30

mind. No reasons have been stated in the order. In view of the contentions raised and without admitting the allegations, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that they will hear the petitioner again and pass an appropriate order after giving proper hearing to the petitioner.

¶31

Rule is made absolute to that extent. Order dated 3^rd May, 2008 is set aside. The respondents shall give proper hearing to the petitioner and pass fresh order within four weeks from today. No order as to costs.

¶32

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Subhash C. Sehgal v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash C. Sehgal v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. Vs Bank of India and 7 Ors.

Riyasat S. Khan Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Dr. Sunil Rebello Vs Neeraj Maheshwari and Anr.

White Rose Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Vs Sharanpal Balmukund Chopra, Mumbai.

S.D.Marne Vs Union Bank of India and Anr.

S. N. Marathe and 2 Ors. Vs Chairman Ad Managing Diector, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.