Allahabad High Court
Soc.For Advancement Of Environmental ... vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Urban ... on 4 January, 2021
Bench: Alok Singh, Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 3 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 25692 of 2020 Petitioner :- Soc.For Advancement Of Environmental Sc.Thru President & Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Urban Development Lko & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Pathak,Piyush Pathak,Shreesh Kumar Mishra Atal,Sonali,Suyash Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma Hon'ble Alok Singh,J.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners,learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 and perused the record.
By means of present writ petition, petitioners have sought the following main relief:-
"(A) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the attachment (Kurki) notice dated 11.12.2020 of the petitioners property/ institution under sections 507,509,513 of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Act,1959 at Serial no.85 and impugned order no.D-529/206 dated 15.11.2019 issued by the opposite parties, more particularly, the opposite parties 2,3,4 and 5 by means of which they are taking steps to recover huge amount of Rs.2,69,66,445.00 ( Rs. two crore, sixty nine lac, sixty six thousand ,four hundred and forty five), the true copy of which is contained as annexure no.1 and Annexure no.38 to the writ petition.
(B) To issue a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature declaring Section 177(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 as ultra virus to the extent as it does not include the Educational Institutions other than Intermediate level from imposition of property tax/ house tax by the Municipal Corporation in the State of Uttar Pradesh."
At the outset , Sri Namit Shrma, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 to 5 submits that petitioners have statutory remedy for filing an appeal under Section 472 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act,1959 ( hereinafter referred as 'Act').
Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners,after arguing at some length,submits that he will pursue the statutory remedy by filing an appeal under Section 472 of the Act. However, his prayer no.B may be protected.
Sri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 to 5 submits that petitioner cannot be granted liberty to challenge the virus as prayed in prayer no. B in the writ petition, as the issue has already attained finality and the matter regarding the same has already been adjudicated and decided by this court in the case of U.P. Public School's Society Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2003 SCC OnLine All 863: (2003)5AWC 4472 as well as the order dated 04.05.2010 passed by this court in Writ Petition No.1048(MB) of 2006 (Sardar Patel Shikshan Samiti Vs. Nagar Nigam through its Commissioner and other).
Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that grounds taken by the petitioner with regard to prayer no.B is different and they have not been adjudicated in the aforesaid two judgments, so the liberty may be given to challenge the same by filing fresh writ petition.
In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that petitioners have statutory remedy by filing an appeal under section 472 of the Act as such the writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory remedy.
However, in case petitioners file an appeal under Section 472 of the Act before the appropriate forum, the same may be decided expeditiously. The stay application, if any, is filed alongwith the appeal shall also be decided within a period of one week from the date of filing of appeal strictly in accordance with law.
Petitioners shall be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition with regard to prayer no. B of the writ petition.
Order Date :- 4.1.2021 dk/