Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 August, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Civil Writ Petition No. 22643 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 22643 of 2010
Date of Decision: 20.8.2013
Bhupinder Singh
.....Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : None for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana.
****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)
Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus.
Learned counsel for the State relies upon the averments taken in para 5 of the written statement, to contend that before filing of the instant writ petition, petitioner did not approach the respondent authorities putting forward his demand. The averments taken in para 5 of the writ petition to the effect that he approached the respondent Kumar Amit 2013.08.22 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 22643 of 2010 2 authorities by way of representation dated 3.5.2010 (Annexure P-6), has been found to be factually incorrect and the same has been denied as such. He further submits that in view of the averments taken in the written statement, let the petitioner approach the Income Tax Authority, seeking redressal of his grievance by moving an appropriate representation along with requisite income tax returns.
The averments taken by the respondent State in para 4 and 5 of the written statement, read as under:-
"That the contents of para No.4 of writ petition are legal. However, the petitioner is liable to refund the TDS amount by filing the return in the Income Tax Department as per orders dated 1-9-2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in COCP Nos. 1941, 1942, 1944, 1949, 1951 of 2011 whereby while disposing of the COCP, the Hon'ble Court observed as under:-
"All the petitioners in these contempt petitions are allowed to file their income tax returns in respect to the amount of compensation, interest, etc. as is payable by the Collector Land Acquisiton for their respective lands/properties. Income Tax Authorities on consideration of nature of acquired land/properties may pass appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act."
However, number of SLPs against the order dated 15-9-2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CW No. 16549/2010-titled Bikramjit Sood Vs. State of Punjab and others filed by the Income Tax Department are pending in the Kumar Amit Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 2013.08.22 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 22643 of 2010 3
That in reply to para No.5 of the writ petition, it is submitted that no representation has been received in the name of Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula. Rest of the contents with regard to representation dated 3.5.2010 Annexure P-6 is denied for want of knowledge."
In view of the above factual aspect of the matter, the petitioner is directed to approach the competent authority by way of an appropriate representation along with requisite documents. It is further directed that if the petitioner approaches the competent authority by moving an appropriate representation along with requisite documents, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority at an early date, by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioner.
With the observations made above, the present petition stands disposed of.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 20.8.2013 Ak Sharma Kumar Amit 2013.08.22 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document