Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 12]

Chattisgarh High Court

Naval Kishore Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh 25 Wppil/57/2015 ... on 12 March, 2019

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                         1

                                                                      NAFR

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           WPT No. 244 of 2018

    Naval Kishore Dewangan S/o Late Shri Ramgopal Dewangan Aged
     About 36 Years, Caste Dewangan, R/o 102, R. S. Marg, Rani Road
     Town School, Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
     Through Power Of Attorney Holder Kamal Kishore Dewangan, S/o
     Late Shri Ramgopal Dewangan, Aged About 33 Years. Caste
     Dewangan, R/o 102 R. S. Marg, Rani Road Town School, Champa,
     District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh

                                                             ---- Petitioner

                                    Versus

  1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
     Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District
     Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

  2. Regional Transport Officer/ Taxation Authority Raipur, District Raipur,
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                          ---- Respondent

For Petitioner : Shri Shailendra Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Sudeep Verma, Deputy GA.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 12/03/2019 :

1. Perusal of the impugned order, particularly, para-4 thereof would indicate that notice of the proceeding was not served on the petitioner.

Therefore, the impugned order is set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Let the authority pass fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say, after quashing of the 2 impugned order, the impugned recovery is not executable against the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the parties would be at liberty to raise all the grounds, both factual and legal, before the Taxation Officer.

3. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve