Disposed

Mukesh Kumar S/O Shri Lakshman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2022CW/3435/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of conjoined S.B. Civil Writ Petitions challenging demand notices and attachment orders. Court treated notices as show cause notices, allowed petitioners four weeks to file responses, and withdrew consequential proceedings upon non-objection.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; petitioners granted four weeks to file response to demand notices; consequential proceedings withdrawn.

Mukesh Kumar S/O Shri Lakshman Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 74/2022

¶3

Suresh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Rameshwar Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Gudha Chanwara Road, Gudhagodji, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance (Revenue), Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Excise Commissioner, Aabkari Bhawan, 2 Gumaniyawala, Panchvati, Udaipur, (Raj.)

¶8

The Additional Excise Commissioner, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur.

¶9

The Additional Excise Commissioner (Policy), Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

The District Excise Officer, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3435/2022

¶14

Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Lakshman, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Babai, Khetri Bus Stand, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶18

Commissioner, Excise Department, State Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶19

District Excise Officer, Jhunjhunu.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5304/2022

¶22

Rakesh Kumar S/o Dayaram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Jhadhewa, Post Birodi Chhoti, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

(2 of 4)

[CW-74/2022]

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance (Revenue), Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶28

The Excise Commissioner, Aabkari Bhawan, 2 Gumaniyawala, Panchvati, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶29

The Additional Excise Commissioner, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur. 4. The Additional Excise Commissioner (Policy), Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶30

The District Excise Officer, Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5323/2022

¶33

Vikash Kumar Saini S/o Shri Hariram Saini, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Nangal, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

¶34

----Petitioner

¶35

Versus

¶36

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance (Revenue), Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶37

The Excise Commissioner, Aabkari Bhawan, 2 Gumaniyawala, Panchvati, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶38

The Additional Excise Commissioner, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur. 4. The Additional Excise Commissioner (Policy), Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶39

The District Excise Officer, Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

¶40

----Respondents

¶41

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5334/2022

¶42

Meera Devi W/o Babulal Saini, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Dhakla Ki Dhani, Chirana, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶43

----Petitioner

¶44

Versus

¶45

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance (Revenue), Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶46

The Excise Commissioner, Aabkari Bhawan, 2 Gumaniyawala, Panchvati, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶47

The Additional Excise Commissioner, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur. 4. The Additional Excise Commissioner (Policy), Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶48

The District Excise Officer, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

(3 of 4)

[CW-74/2022]

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5336/2022

¶53

Mahendra Gurjar S/o Shri Ramkumar Gurjar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Manaksas, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶54

----Petitioner

¶55

Versus

¶56

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance (Revenue), Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶57

The Excise Commissioner, Aabkari Bhawan, 2 Gumaniyawala, Panchvati, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶58

The Additional Excise Commissioner, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur. 4. The Additional Excise Commissioner (Policy), Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶59

The District Excise Officer, Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

¶60

----Respondents

¶61

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5606/2022

¶62

Smt. Sanju Khichar W/o Shri Sumer Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vpo Akwa, Via Khuri Bari, Tehsil And District Sikar (Raj.)

¶63

----Petitioner

¶64

Versus

¶65

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance (Revenue), Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶66

The Excise Commissioner, Aabkari Bhawan, 2, Gumaniyawala, Panchvati, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶67

The Additional Excise Commissioner, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur. 4. The Additional Excise Commissioner (Policy), Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶68

The District Excise Officer, Sikar (Raj.)

¶69

The Excise Circle Inspector, Sikar South

¶70

----Respondents

¶71

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virender Godara Mr. Naqvi Sehban Najib Sabiha Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Dangi

¶72

(4 of 4)

¶73

[CW-74/2022]

¶74

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶75

Order

¶76

12/09/2022

¶77

Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, submits that all the demand notices/orders impugned and under challenge in these writ petitions may be treated as show cause notices to the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners may file their response/reply/representation against these notices/orders within a period of four weeks from today whereupon, the respondents shall proceed in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that all consequential proceedings including attachment orders in pursuance of the demand notices/orders in the instant writ petitions shall stand withdrawn.

¶78

Learned counsels for the petitioners have no objection to the aforesaid submission and pray that the instant writ petitions may be disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶79

In view thereof, these writ petitions are disposed of in terms of submission made by learned counsel for the respondents.

¶80

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶81

PRAGATI/296 & 304-309

Mukesh Kumar S/O Shri Lakshman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar S/O Shri Lakshman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padmaram Vs Bagaram and Ors.

All India Society for Education and Ors. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank and Ors.

Vikash Merutha S/O Ramnarayan Merutha Vs State of Rajasthan

Preeti Bala Dhanetwal Vs Riico

Bihari and Ors. Vs Gyarsi Devi and Ors.

Panchu Lal Paharia and Anr. Vs Rajneesh Gupta and Ors.