Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jayendra Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 1752 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20541 (5 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).




Jayendra Pratap Singh.       ....Petitioner


State of U.P. and others.   .Opp.parties


Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged  the order dated 07.09.2006 passed by the State Government in appeal filed by the petitioner under section 12 (2) of U.P. Entertainment and Betting  Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act").

Petitioner is a cable operator. The demand has been raised  for the period December, 1994 to December, 1998 for 35 connections @ Rs.35/- per month, for the period January, 1999 to August, 2000 for 52 connections @ Rs.100/- per month, for the period September, 2000 to March, 2003 for 194 connections @ Rs.100/- per month, April 2003 to May, 2003 for 300 connections @ Rs.100/- per month, for the period June, 2003 to December, 2003 for 715 connections @ Rs.150/- per  month  and from January, 2004 onwards 715 connections have been assessed.  Being aggrieved by the order, petitioner filed appeal under section 12 (2) of the Act before the State Government.  Petitioner objected the number of connections vide letter dated 16.06.2006. Petitioner requested that the survey made in June, 2003 has not been confronted to the petitioner and the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur be directed to confront the survey report made in June, 2003. On the said application, Special Secretary directed District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to confront the survey report dated 22.06.2003 and the petitioner has been directed to furnish the list of the disputed connections on 06.07.2006. On 06.07.2006 petitioner appeared and furnished the list of 155 connections as the disputed connections. Special Secretary handed over the said list to Sri S.K. Singh, Inspector to verify the list after making fresh survey and to submit  his report and the date was fixed for 07.09.2006. On 07.09.2006 appeal has been heard finally. Inspector in its report submitted that out of 155 connections only 12 connections were found provided by the petitioner and the rest of the connections were found not provided by the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, impugned order has been passed taking the connections at 572. In the impugned order, it has also been observed that the petitioner agreed for 572 connections and on this basis direction has been given to District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to calculate the demand for 572 connections. However, penalty has been set aside.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

With the consent of both the parties, present writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Special Secretary has erred in taking 572 connections. He submitted that the complete list of 715 connections has never been provided to the petitioner and the petitioner has not been provided opportunity to dispute the connections. He submitted that the survey was made behind the petitioner and the petitioner has not been confronted the survey report at any stage.

I do not find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has been given opportunity to dispute the connections mentioned in the survey report. Petitioner has given the list of only 155 connections, which according to the petitioner were not related to it. On the verification, claim of the petitioner was found substantially correct and only 12 connections were found relating to the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner's connection has been reduced from 715 to 572. The impugned order reveals that the petitioner agreed for the 572 connections.

In these circumstances, it can not be said that the proper opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the writ petition.

In the result, writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.