Disposed

Dularam Vidhani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Apr 2022WPC/1674/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged inaction by Respondents 2 and 3 regarding pending refund applications for a Term Deposit Receipt submitted under a liquor license. The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondents 2 and 3 to decide the applications within one month, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents No. 2 & 3 to decide pending applications for refund of TDR within 1 month.

Dularam Vidhani Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 1674 of 2022

¶5

Dularam Vidhani S/o Late Shri Idan Das Vidhani Aged About 65 Years Director Hotel Ananda Imperial, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Excise And Commercial Tax Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

The Commissioner, Excise Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner Excise Department, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents

¶10

_____________________________________________________________________ For Petitioner: Shri Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Counsel appears along with Shri Akash Pandey, Advocate For the State/Respondent: Shri Rahul Jha, G.A.

¶11

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J Order On Board

¶12

21.04.2022

¶13

The petitioner is aggrieved with the inaction and omission on the part of Respondents Authorities, particularly Respondents No.2 & 3 herein. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a hotel in the name and style of Hotel Ananda Imperial Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur and has obtained a liquor licence for the year 20192020 in order to provide the services to the guest of his hotel and according to the terms and conditions of the license, the petitioner was required to submit a Bank Guarantee. However, owing to paucity of

¶14

¶15

time and annual closing of the Banks, it could not be obtained, therefore, the petitioner had submitted a Personal Term Deposit Receipt issued in the name of Aananda Devcon Pvt. Ltd., and, thereafter the petitioner had also provided the Bank Guarantee in this regard. Further contention of the petitioner is that since the Bank Guarantee has already been submitted, therefore, applications dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure P-5) and 27.09.2021 (Annexure P-6) were made for the refund of TDR, however, the said applications have not been decided till date. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, prays for disposal of this petition by directing the concerned Respondents Authorities to decide his said applications (Annexure P-5) and (Annexure P-6) as soon as possible.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/State on the basis of instructions received submits that they may consider the applications as submitted by the Petitioner, in this regard.

¶17

In view of above, this Court feels that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending as it can be disposed of at this stage itself. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by directing the Respondents No.2 & 3 to decide the said applications filed on 18.08.2021 (Annexure P-5) and 27.09.2021 (Annexure P-6), as made by the petitioner for refund of the Personal Term Deposit Receipt dated 30.03.2019, which was issued in favour of Aananda Devcon Pvt. Ltd., Gurunanak Chowk, Torwa, Bilaspur, within the stipulated period of 1 month from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order.

¶18

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the

¶19

¶20

merits of the case and the concerned Respondents Authorities may decide the same on its own merits, in accordance with the law.

¶21

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed

¶22

of.

¶23

Sd/(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

¶24

Vivek

Dularam Vidhani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dularam Vidhani v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Sanjay Kumar Chauhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Mahendra Pal Singh Malhotra Vs Managing Director

Munnalal Dewangan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Itwaar Singh Yadav And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Lingraj Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Sgst

Savita Kathale Vs State of Chhattisgarh