Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHD. YASIN versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohd. Yasin v. State Of U.P. & Another - WRIT TAX No. 962 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 1721 (22 July 2005)

 

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.37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.962 of 2003.

Mohd. Yasin, Mau.     Petitioner.

Versus

State of U.P. and another.       Respondents.      

Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The petitioner owns a shopping complex having about 220 shops at Mau. The Executive Officer, Nagarpalika Parishad, Mau Nath Bhanjan, Mau have raised a demand of Rs. 68,640/- towards water tax for the year 2002-2003. This amount of tax is the same, which was paid by the petitioner during the previous year 2001-2002 as per averments made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the Nagarpalika parishad, Mau is not supplying any water to the petitioner-shopping complex and therefore, he is not liable to pay water tax. This grievance was also raised by the petitioner through representation-dated 16.5.2003 filed as annexure-12 to the writ petition followed by the reminders to the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mau. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that without the radius of 200 meters from the shopping complex of the petitioner, water main pipe line is going and, therefore, under the provision of clause (14) read with 128 (x) and 129 (iii) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, water tax is payable. It is not in dispute that within the radius of 200 meters from the shopping complex of the petitioner, one main pipeline is going and, therefore, the liability for payment of water tax is there, notwithstanding the fact that the water is not being supplied to the petitioner. Liability for payment of water tax is statutory in nature and if there is no water supply to the petitioner-shopping complex he is not liable to pay any water tax.

Before parting with the case, we feel it proper that as the petitioner has made an application for water connection, respondent no.2 shall ensure that water connection is given to the petitioner within a month subject to payment of arrears of water tax and other charges.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and is accordingly, dismissed.

Dated.22.07.2005.

VS.


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.