High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Selection Point Bazar Ltd & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 46415 of 2005  RD-AH 4377 (23 February 2006)
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
List revised. None present to press this petition. Shri Anil Tiwari, Advocate, is present for the respondent, Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly.
We have heard this matter at length earlier and considered the statutory provisions applicable in this case. Shri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned notice dated 07.02.2005 issued for recovery of amount of compounding charges without having sanction of statutory provision under the Act. Thus, the same cannot be enforced, for the reason that there is no provision of compounding of such a construction.
However, the parking places cannot be converted into commercial complex or commercial complex already constructed cannot be extended in parking zone by paying the compounding fee.
Be that as it may, in view of the above, petition deserves to be allowed and the order/notice impugned is liable to be quashed.
Petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice dated 07.02.2005 is quashed. The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law, if they so desire.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.