Disposed

Rajesh Mittal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Apr 2009CWP/5662/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition regarding quashing of a recovery notice for non-construction fees is dismissed as threshold not met. Petitioner granted liberty to file reply-cum-objections. Respondent directed to consider merits with reference to cited judgments.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to file reply-cum-objections; respondent directed to dispose matter on merits. No coercive steps pending.

Rajesh Mittal Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No.5662 of 2009 Date of decision: April 21, 2009.

¶3

Rajesh Mittal

¶4

... Petitioner(s)

¶5

¶6

State of Haryana & Ors.

¶7

... Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶10

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Shri Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Surya Kant, J. - (Oral):

¶15

The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 13.3.2009 (Annexure P-1) whereby he has been given last opportunity to deposit the outstanding dues levied on account of non-construction fee.

¶16

The petitioner is allottee of plot No.41 in the new Grain Market at Jagadhari. His case is that he has already constructed the shop in the year 2003, yet the non-construction fee is being levied for the subsequent years also. His second grievance is that the alleged outstanding dues sought to be recovered from the petitioner include the interest and penalty which are not leviable in the light of a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated December 19, 2008 passed in CWP No.21289 of 2008 ( Gurdial Chand v. State of Haryana & Ors. ), Annexure P-2. The petitioner also relies upon

¶17

copy of the speaking order dated 15.9.2007 passed by respondent No.4 in the case of similarly situated allottees who have been granted exemption from payment of interest and non-construction charges.

¶18

It, however, appears that the petitioner has rushed to this Court even without responding to the notices served upon him and/or approaching the respondents.

¶19

Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit his reply-cum-objections against the impugned notice within two weeks. The petitioner may also attach copies of the Division Bench judgment dated 19.12.2008 in Gurdial Chand's case (supra) as well as the speaking order dated 15.9.2007, referred to above, along with his reply-cum-objections and on receipt thereof, respondent No.4 is directed to consider and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law with specific reference to the judgment in Gurdial Chand's case (supra) and his own speaking order. The needful shall be done as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶20

Dasti.

¶21

April 21, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge

Rajesh Mittal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Mittal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Garg Impex Ltd. Vs Pb. Financial Corp

Virpal Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sham Sunder Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ganesh Karyana Store & Anr. Vs U.T. Chd. & Ors.

Mewa Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

The Mangat Coop Labour &Construction Society Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.