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 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Satluj Stone Crusher vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 May, 2013

Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal

Civil Writ Petition No.8111 of 2013                             1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                          Civil Writ Petition No.8111 of 2013
                          Date of Order: 09.05.2013

M/s Satluj Stone Crusher                              ...Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Punjab and others                       ..Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
             HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Present: Mr. Ramanjit Singh, Advocate
         for the petitioner.
         Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Addl. A.G.,Punjab,
         for the State.

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing demand notice dated 05.05.2011, issued by the Mining Officer, Department of Industries, Punjab.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as an appeal is pending against the show cause notice, the letter, Annexure P-5, requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,69,38,000/- is illegal and void and should, therefore, be quashed.

Counsel for the State of Punjab fairly concedes that the appeal against the demand notice is pending consideration before the Director, Industries and Commerce, for 14.05.2013, on which date the petitioner has been called for personal hearing. It is further submitted, on instructions, that till decision of the appeal, the demand Civil Writ Petition No.8111 of 2013 2 notice, Annexure P-5, shall be kept in abeyance.

We have heard counsel for the parties and in view of the pendency of the appeal and the statement made by counsel for the State of Punjab, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Director, Industries and Commerce, to decide the appeal within three months from 14.05.2013. Till such time as the final order is not passed, the demand notice, Annexure P-5, shall remain in abeyance.




                                             (RAJIVE BHALLA)
                                                 JUDGE



May 09, 2013                                 (REKHA MITTAL)
nt                                               JUDGE