Allahabad High Court
The Kanoria Sugar And General ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others on 6 July, 2022
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32465 of 2012 Petitioner :- The Kanoria Sugar And General Manufacturing Co.Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diptiman Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravindra Singh Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 to 11.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and to quash the seizure/attachment order dated 22.6.2012 issued by Respondent No. 4(Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent No. 4 to allow the petitioner to operate Bank Account No. 4657008700000012 with Punjab National Bank, Captainganj, Kushinagar.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declare the demand of 10% collection charges as introduced through Section 4(amended Sub Section 3 and Sub Section 3-a of Section 3) of the Revenue Recovery (Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, 2001 (U.P. Act No. 37 of 2001) ultra-vires Article 14,19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition)."
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the relief nos. (i) and (ii) does not survive inasmuch as the petitioner has already paid the entire amount. He, therefore, has pressed only relief No.(iii).
As per the impugned order dated 22.6.2012, the entire amount was deposited by the petitioner, but the demand of collection charges at the rate of 10% amounting to Rs. 35.7 lacs was disputed.
We find that the controversy involved in the present writ petition with regard to collection charges is covered by Full Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Mahrajwa and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2013 (1) ADJ 426 (FB).
As agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 11, this writ petition with respect to collection charges is disposed of in terms of Full Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Mahrajwa (supra).
Order Date :- 6.7.2022 sfa/