Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURYA BHAN SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Surya Bhan Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 18710 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7270 (4 April 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

]

       Court No.10

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18710 of 2006

Surya Bhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others

******

Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Heard Sri Krishna Behari, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P. Singh appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 at length and perused the record.

The grievance of the petitioner is that recovery certificate dated 31.3.2005 (annexure-8 to the writ petition) issued by respondent no.1 in pursuance of the impugned order dated 29.11.2004 (annexure-7 to the writ petition) as arrears of land revenue is wrong, bad and illegal and not in accordance with law and procedure. More so, since, the matter is already subjudiced before the learned labour Commissioner as well as this Court and therefore, the auction notice dated 3.3.2006 issued by the recovery officer/collector-respondent no.2 is also illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law and as such is liable to be set aside, as the auction notice cannot be issued under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 as well as the amount sought to be recovered as land revenue and arrears does not fall within the definition of Section 2 of Sub Section (b) of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. That the impugned order dated 29.11.2004 has been passed on the basis of letter of Upper Mukhya Adhikari without examining the actual ownership or partnership of the RSS brand brick kiln (RSS Marka Bhatta).

From the perusal of the record, it is found as per para-13 of the writ petition the order passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition No.23891 of 2002 filed by one of the partners of the firm, it was directed that -

if any objection is filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid period the respondent no.1 shall decide same within a period of three months

In the mean time till the objection of the petitioner is decided the recovery proceeding against the petitioner in pursuance of the order-dated 27.11.1997 shall be kept in abeyance.

However, these objections have been decided by the impugned order dated 29.11.2004 and the interim order passed by this Court earlier came to an end. From the perusal of the impugned order it is found that notices were issued to the petitioner and other four partners to appear before the authority (Commissioner) on 28.7.2004, 11.8.2004, 20.8.2004 and 27.8.2004, but no one appeared nor they have been filed their objections before the authority, except the petitioner who filed his objections mentioning therein that there were other four partners. It has been held that from the record it was found that the petitioner-Surya Bhan Singh had requested that the other four partners be also impleaded as parties, being partners but no documentary evidence or proof was placed by him on record.

Looking into to facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed off finally at the admission stage with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the respondent no.3 within 15 days bringing the necessary facts with proof regarding the partners. In case such representation is filed within the aforesaid time the respondent no.3 shall consider the same and after affording full opportunity of hearing dispose off the said representation by reasoned and speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before it. It is further directed that till the disposal of the representation by the respondent no.3, no coercive method would be adopted against the petitioner.

No order as to costs.  

April 4, 2006

Hasnain


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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