Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Preethi Himaachal & Co vs Union Of India And Others on 30 November, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Civil Writ Petition No.5719 of 2022
Date of decision : 30th November, 2022
.
M/s Preethi Himaachal & Co. ...... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ......Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate, for the petitioner.
For the Respondent : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of
India, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate, for
Respondents No.2 to 4.
Sabina, Judge (oral)
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking mainly the following relief(s):-
"i) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the Respondent No.2;
ii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction that the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order will be stayed fully and no action shall be taken 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2022 20:32:06 :::CIS 2
against the Petitioner till the time the matter is pending before this Hon'ble Court;
iii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction for such .
further and other reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case;
iv) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent no.3 to complete the assessment proceedings in a time bound manner as directed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.3538/2021 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order dated 16.11.2021, this Court in CWP No.3538 of 2021 (Annexure P-8) had directed the respondent-National Faceless Assessment Centre to pass fresh order of assessment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, the impugned notice dated 12.7.2022 has been passed by respondent No.2, whereas, it was to be passed by respondent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has failed to controvert the factual aspect of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
5. Impugned order dated 12.7.2022 (Annexure P-1) is set aside.
Consequently, respondent No.3 is directed to pass the order in terms ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2022 20:32:06 :::CIS 3 of the decision given by this Court in CWP No.3538 of 2021 (Annexure P-8) dated 16.11.2021.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand .
disposed of.
( Sabina )
Judge
November 30, 2022 (ks)
to ( Sushil Kukreja)
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2022 20:32:06 :::CIS