Allowed

P.a.Pharantaman v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC28 Mar 2024WP/8633/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a recovery demand notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, arguing no prior proceedings were served. The court set aside the notice on the admitted ground that the underlying order dated 14.12.2023 was not served.

What did the court decide?

The impugned demand notice dated 06.02.2024 is set aside. Formerly imposed penalties are construed as show-cause notices.

P.a.Pharantaman Vs Government of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:1648

¶2

W.P.No.8633 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 28.03.2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

W.P.No.8633 of 2024

¶8

& WMP.Nos.9616 & 9617 of 2024

P.A.Pharantaman

.... Petitioner

1.Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶13

Industries (MMC.1) Department, Represented by Additional Chief Secretary, Fort St George,

¶14

Chennai-600 009.

¶15

2.The Director of Geology and Mining, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶16

3.The District Collector, Perambalur District, Perambalur.

¶17

4.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology & Mining, Collectorate, Perambalur.

¶18

5.The Tahsildar, Alathur Taluk, Perambalur District.

¶19

.... Respondents

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

1/4

¶22

W.P.No.8633 of 2024

¶23

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records of the 5^th Respondent which culminated in the impugned notice in Na.Ka.A5/5163/ 2023 dated 06.02.2024 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Nishanth For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu

¶25

Additional Government Pleader

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader

¶28

accepts notice for the respondents and is armed with instructions to

¶29

enable final disposal of this Writ Petition, even at the stage of admission.

¶30

The petitioner challenges a notice of recovery under the

¶31

Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 calling upon the petitioner to remit the demand of a sum of Rs.78,72,600/- within seven days from receipt thereof.

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that there are no proceeding prior to the impugned demand that have been received. Hence, the impugned demand is itself unsustainable.

¶33

Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu would confirm that proceedings dated 14.12.2023 based on which the impugned demand has been issued do not

¶34

appear to have been served upon the petitioner. He circulates

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

2/4

¶37

W.P.No.8633 of 2024

¶38

proceedings in Rc.No.219/G&M/2023, dated 27.03.2024 confirming the

¶39

aforesaid position.

¶40

In light of the above admitted position to the effect that order dated 14.12.2023 has not been served upon the petitioner, the impugned demand is unsustainable in law and the same is set aside.

¶41

On merits, both learned counsel would accede to the position

¶42

that the ratio of the order of the First Bench passed in W.A.No.671 of 2020 etc. batch dated 15.02.2024 will apply on all fours to the present case. The directions at paragraph 28 of order dated 15.02.2024 are

¶43

extracted below:-

¶44

“28. In the result, we pass the following orders:

¶45

(i) The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge at the Principal Seat is quashed and set aside;

¶46

(ii) The impugned orders/memos imposing 100% penalty/cost upon the appellants/petitioners shall be construed as show-cause notices;

¶47

(iii) The appellants/petitioners shall file reply to the said show-cause notices, along with all the relevant documents on which they rely, within a period of four weeks from today; and

¶48

(iv) The authority shall consider the reply filed by the appellants/petitioners individually and pass fresh orders with regard to imposing of penalty/cost or otherwise.”

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

3/4

¶51

W.P.No.8633 of 2024

¶52

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶53

7.The same order as above is taken to be passed in the present writ

¶54

petition as well.

¶55

8.Writ petition stands disposed in terms of this order. No costs.

¶56

Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶57

¶58

28.03.2024

¶59

Index:Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes To

¶60

1.Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries (MMC.1) Department, Represented by Additional Chief Secretary, Fort St George, Chennai-600 009.

¶61

2.The Director of Geology and Mining, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶62

3.The District Collector, Perambalur District, Perambalur.

¶63

4.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology & Mining, Collectorate, Perambalur.

¶64

5.The Tahsildar, Alathur Taluk, Perambalur District.

¶65

W.P.No.8633 of 2024 & WMP.Nos.9616 & 9617 of 2024

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

4/4

P.a.Pharantaman v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.a.Pharantaman v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meenakhisundaram Kumararaja Vs Superintending Engineer

Dr.C.Aruna M.D., Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Dr.v.Ajay Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Karti P.Chidambaram Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Dr.Danit E Jolly Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Revathy Brick Works, Vs the District Collector