Petition challenging recovery notices was disposed of as premature since the reply submitted by petitioner had not yet been decided by the authorities.
The writ petition was disposed of; petitioners to be permitted to present their case in person.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2155/2008 HAKIM KHAN & ANOTHER V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
DATE OF ORDER ::: 02/04/2008
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI
Mr. Girish Sankhla, for Petitioner (s).
This writ petition is directed against the recovery notice Annexure-4 dated 14.2.2008 and Annexure-5 dated 15.2.2008. Perusal of the notice reveals that the petitioner was called upon to represent the matter before the authority-concerned who had issued the notice and, for that purposes, even petitioner was permitted to represent his case in person. Pursuant to the notice, petitioner has already submitted reply on 26.2.2008. Leanred counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the notice impugned at Annexures-4 and 5, respondents are harassing the petitioner, therefore, the respondents be restrained to initiate any action against the petitioner as their action is contrary to the provisions of law.
Perusal of the notice reveals that the petitioner was
2
called upon to submit his defence and petitioner, in fact, submitted a reply to the notice which has not yet been decided as stated by the petitioner. It is expected from the authorities concerned to first decide the reply to the notice and then only proceed further. In view of the above, apprehension of the petitioner that the respondents may effect recovery even without deciding the reply submitted by the petitioner is not based on reasons or material. In the writ petition, so preferred by the petitioner, is premature as no final order against petition exists. However, it is exepcted from the authorities concerned to look into the objections submitted by thepetitioner and decide the same and decide the same before taking further action in the matter.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. In that regard, the petitioner should also be permitted to represent his case in person with all legal grounds, if any.
(M. N. BHANDARI), J.
scd
3
HAKIM KHAN & ANOTHER
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
