Allowed

Pune Cantonment Board v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Dept. of Finance

Bombay HC1 Dec 2021WP/3013/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Pune Cantonment Board sought relief due to financial constraints resulting from the Central GST Act. The court allowed the petition but directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the Chief Secretary for a binding decision within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make fresh representation to Chief Secretary; State directed to decide within two months after hearing.

Pune Cantonment Board Vs State of Maharashtra through… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

5- WP 3013of 2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 3013 OF 2021

¶5

Pune Cantonment Board ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Dept. of Finance ...Respondent

¶6

Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Tushad Kakalia

¶7

a/w. Mr. D.J. Kakalia, a/w. Ms. Bhavna Singh a/w. Mr. Sandeep Goyal i/b. Mulla & Mulla & C.B. & C. for the Petitioners

¶8

Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh for Respondent No.2

¶9

Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, AG a/w. Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP a/w. Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP a/w. Mr. Akshay Shinde, Advocate ‘B’ Panel for State.

¶10

CORAM : A. A. SAYED & S. G. DIGE, JJ

¶11

DATED : 1ST DECEMBER, 2021

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing and setting aside the 1^st Respondent’s Impugned Decision dated

¶14

V A Tikam 1/4

¶15

5- WP 3013of 2021.doc

¶16

28^th November, 2019 (Exhibit ‘O’ to the Petition);

¶17

(b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the 1^st Respondent to consider the Petitioner’s representations dated 31^st January, 2018 (Exhibit ‘A’ to the Petition), 12^th February, 2019 (Exhibit ‘F’ to the Petition), 9^th October 2019 (Exhibit ‘M’ to the Petition), 21^st November 2019 (Exhibit ‘N’ to the Petition), 21^st December 2019 (Exhibit ‘Q’ to the Petition) and 20^th January, 2020 (Exhibit ‘T’ to the Petition) within such times as this Hon’ble Court may direct.”

¶18

We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Advocate General for State and learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2.

¶19

We have perused the Orders passed by this Court including the Orders dated 16^th March, 2020, 17^th March, 2020, 20^th March, 2020 and 22^nd November, 2020. We note the contention of the Petitioner that pursuant to coming into force of the Central Goods & Services Tax

¶20

V A Tikam 2/4

¶21

5- WP 3013of 2021.doc

¶22

Act, the Petitioner - Pune Cantonment Board is without any funds as it has no power to collect taxes. According to the Petitionerit is incumbent on the State Government to provide for compensation to the Petitioner - Pune Cantonment Board to meet their expenses.

¶23

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow the Petition. However, on request of learned Counsel for Petitioner, we permit the Petitioner – Pune Cantonment Board to make a fresh Representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, who shall decide the representation expeditiously after hearing the Petitioner. Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(i) The Petitioner– Pune Cantonment Board is permitted to make a fresh representation to the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra. If such Representation is made within a period of two weeks, the same shall be decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

¶26

(ii) We make it clear that the representation shall be decided uninfluenced by the

¶27

V A Tikam 3/4

¶28

5- WP 3013of 2021.doc

¶29

letter/decision dated 28^th November, 2019 of the then Chief Secretary.

¶30

(iii) It is expected of the Respondents in the meantime, to comply with the Orders of this Court.

¶31

(S. G. DIGE, J.)

¶32

(A. A. SAYED, J.)

¶33

4/4

¶34

V A Tikam

Pune Cantonment Board v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Dept. of Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pune Cantonment Board v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Dept. of Finance

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

Sneh, a Public Trust Thru Trustee Ms. Gauri Godse Vs Thr Municipal Corp. of the City of Thane and Ors.

The Ideal Shantinagar Co.Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Pramod Hiralal Sathe and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Atul Vinayak Gaikwad and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Pundalik Sharanbasappa Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Department Government of Maharashtra

Pundalik Sharanbasappa Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Department Government of Maharashtra