Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jeet Singh Thakur vs State Of Hp And Others on 18 August, 2017
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 6052 of 2011.
Decided on 18.8.2017.
Jeet Singh Thakur ....Petitioner.
.
Versus
State of HP and others. ... Respondents.
................................................................................................
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
No.
For the petitioner. : Ms. Bhavana Datta, Advocate.
For respondents
r : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Dy. Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral).
By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
"i)That the impugned notice dated 11.7.2011 issued by the respondent No.5 vide Annexure P-2 may be quashed and set aside.
ii)That the respondent may kindly be directed to re-calculate the SRT due from the petitioner by making correct and reasonable calculations till date 3.6.2007 after deducting the penalty and also associating the petitioner while making the said calculation."
2. Annexure P-2 is a communication issued to Tehsildar Shallai, District Sirmaur by Tehsildar (Recovery), District Sirmaur at Nahan calling upon the said authority to take appropriate steps for 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2017 22:55:55 :::HCHP 2recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,80,457/- from the present petitioner by way of recovery of arrear of land revenue.
3. Ms. Bhavana Datta learned counsel for the petitioner .
informs the Court that notice/proceedings for recovery of amount by way of recovery of arrear of land revenue stood initiated by the authority concerned against the petitioner as, allegedly the petitioner had failed to pay Special Road Tax ( in short 'SRT') in lieu of his plying bus bearing registration No. HP64-0268. Learned counsel further submits that against the demand of SRT the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs. 1.00 lac.
3. On the query of the Court as to why the petitioner has not placed on record the order so passed by the competent authority vide which demand for payment of SRT was raised, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per her instructions petitioner never received any such notice or order. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter still remains that Annexure P-2 is a consequential order to the original order which stands passed against the petitioner by the competent authority directing the petitioner to pay the SRT. Until and unless, the said order so passed by the statutory authority is set aside by the competent authority/competent Court of law, Annexure P-2 cannot be quashed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to challenge order so passed against him by the authority demanding ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2017 22:55:55 :::HCHP 3 SRT and this Court may protect the petitioner for the purposes of limitation for the period present writ petition was pending in the Court.
.
Accordingly this writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is clarified that in case order vide which SRT stands imposed against the petitioner is assailed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today then the appropriate authority shall take into consideration for the purpose of calculating the limitation period, which was spent by the petitioner while pursing the present writ petition. It is clarified that for a further period of six weeks from today no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
Copy dasti.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 18th August, 2017 (Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2017 22:55:55 :::HCHP