Disposed

Indrajeet Singh Saluja v. Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Jharkhand HC6 Nov 2019WPC/2930/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a demand notice for water arrears. The court directed the authority to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing to object to the notice, acknowledging the dispute over calculation and lack of hearing, without adjudicating the factual claim of hotel closure.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 3 to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to make objection to the demand notice.

Indrajeet Singh Saluja Vs Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2930 of 2019

¶3

-----

¶4

Indrajeet Singh Saluja Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad 2.The Managing Director, JMADA, Dhanbad

¶7

3.The Secretary, JMADA, Dhanbad

¶8

4.Head Assistant (Water Rate), JMADA, Dhanbad

¶9

.… ... Respondents

¶10

-----

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶12

-----

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mahabir Pd. Sinha, Advocate -----

¶14

Order No. 07 : Dated 6th November, 2019

¶15

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to assail the Demand Note No. 284/409/K018-19 for payment of arrears dues of supply of water.

¶16

It is admitted case of the petitioner that at the time when water connection has been provided, the petitioner was running with the hotel business but it has been contended that due to financial crunch, the hotel business of the petitioner has come to closure but the water connection remained in the premises. The fact about closure of the hotel has been brought to the notice of the concerned authority in order to take steps for converting the rate of water supply from commercial use to the domestic use, but, according to petitioner no concrete decision has been taken in this regard and ultimately the demand notice has been issued calculating the amount for supply of water on non-domestic rate and also for payment of Delayed Payment Surcharge that too without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶17

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since there is calculation dispute, as such the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing to put forth his defence and to that effect the petitioner has filed repeated representations but no decision has been taken and straightway demand notice has been issued.

¶19

Mr. Mahabir Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has not made any application to convert the connection of water supply from commercial use to domestic use and the authority by treating the supply of water on commercial basis has raised the demand, which suffers from no infirmity.

¶20

This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going across the pleading made in the writ petition and argument made on behalf of parties, has found from the impugned demand notice that amount of Rs. 3,17,116.00 has been raised against the petitioner for payment of arrears of water as also the Delayed Payment Surcharge, which the petitioner is disputing.

¶21

Admittedly, the petitioner has not made any application to convert the supply of water from commercial use to domestic use and fact about running of the hotel or its closure cannot be looked into by this Court since it is disputed question of fact, which is to be looked into by the concerned authority by inspecting the said hotel but so far as contention of the petitioner that there is error in the calculation, as such, this Court deem it fit and proper to direct the concerned

¶22

¶23

authority-respondent no. 3 to afford opportunity to the petitioner to make objection to the demand notice and if such is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the concerned authority shall pass appropriate speaking order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such objection, if any.

¶24

It is made clear that if no objection is filed within the stipulated period of time, as directed by this Court, liberty is reserved with the authority concerned to take necessary steps for recovery of the amount, which is subject matter of the instant writ petition.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶27

Alankar/-

Indrajeet Singh Saluja v. Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajeet Singh Saluja v. Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

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

Bishnu Kumar Singh And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Abhoy Enterprises through Its Partner Sri Binay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Rural Development Department

Mohasi Bibi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Saro Manjhian Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jyanti Munda Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors.

Famica Press Industries P Limited through Jairam Prasad Singh Vs Bank of India through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director