Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Azad Pipes Pvt. Ltd vs Unknown on 12 August, 2011
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Rajesh Bindal
C.W.P. NO. 14386 of 2011 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 14386 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.8.2011
M/s Azad Pipes Pvt. Ltd.
..Petitioner
v.
The State of Punjab and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
...
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The only grouse raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though it is provided for under the provisions of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 that the goods, if detained, are to be released on furnishing of surety but the same have not been released.
Learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that the goods of the petitioner shall be released on furnishing surety.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to earlier orders passed by this court in Varinder Kumar & Co., Khanna and another v. State of Punjab and others, (2000) 16 PHT 486 (P&H); M/s Rachna Steel Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh v. State of Punjab and another, (2000) 15 PHT 460 (P&H) and Osaw Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and others, (2007) 30 PHT 344 (P&H), submitted that similar orders are being passed by the same officer causing unnecessary C.W.P. NO. 14386 of 2011 [ 2] harassment to the dealers and resulting in creation of avoidable litigation. Earlier also, in Osaw Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), the same officer had been burdened with costs of ` 10,000/- to be recovered from him personally. Considering the fact that he has still not corrected his way of working, costs be imposed upon him.
The stand of learned counsel for the State was that the officer was working in the best interest of the State and is one of the honest officers.
After considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, considering the conduct of the officer, who dealt with the case of the petitioner in the manner which was indefeasible and the State had to ultimately concede the relief prayed for, the officer deserves to be burdened with costs of ` 25,000/-. The amount shall initially be paid by the State, however, the same shall be recovered from the officer.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice 12.8.2011 mk