0
hc patna

A Order Has To Be Set Aside If It Goes Against The Principle Of Natural Justice: Patna High Court

Citation: CWJC No.4833 of 2020

Decided On: 16-10-2023

Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice And Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

Introduction:

The petitioner is aggrieved with the proceedings taken by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Patna. Notice dated 24.09.2018 is issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as against the assessee, who is assigned to the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Jamshedpur. Admittedly, the assessee is assigned to Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Jamshedpur before which Officer, she also filed the Income Tax returns for the Assessment year 2016- 17, as is evident from. No further proceedings were taken by the Assessing Officer, who was the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Jamshedpur.

Facts:

The petitioner was then issued with notice dated 24.09.2018, in reply to which the petitioner specifically filed response dated 01.03.2019, along with supplementary counter affidavit. The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction and raised specific contentions against the allegations in the notice under Section 148. The petitioner specifically pointed out that there could be no proceedings taken by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4) Patna.

The learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department referred to Section 124(3) and also the consolidation of matters done by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 6, Patna, who has overall jurisdiction of State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. It is also specifically pointed out that the land, subject to a development agreement, based on which the notice was issued under Section 148 was located within the State of Bihar.

The Joint Commissioner seems to have transferred the file of the Assessee to the Income Tax Officer Ward 6(4) Patna, on the ground that the property in relation to which the addition is threatened, was located within the State of Bihar, that too inside the boundaries of Patna. Court, specifically noticed that Section 127 which clothes the Principal Director General, Director General, the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers sub- ordinate to him, whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers also sub- ordinate to him. However, the specific mandate in Section 127 is that the Assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter wherever it is possible to do so.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

There is no circumstance brought on record which made the extension of such an opportunity, which is also the statutory mandate, to be impossible in the facts of the present case. Obviously, the transfer was done behind the back of the petitioner. Court found no reason to uphold the order of assessment, which was passed pursuant to a notice issued on the wrong premise of a transfer made by the Commissioner without following the principles of natural justice, which is specifically made a mandate in the provision enabling such transfer. Hence, the assessment order passed and find the notice was set aside.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

0

Court Has No Need To Interfere When A Fair Inquiry Took Place Before Taking The Decision: Patna High Court

Citation: L.P.A No.534 of 2021

Decided on: 10-10-2023

Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice And Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

Introduction:

The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the order and judgment dated 06.08.2021 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in CWJC No. 1192 of 2020 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

Facts:

The appellant-petitioner was a PDS dealer at village in Ward No. 11, village-Panapur in the District of East Champaran. Vide notice contained in memo no. 373 dated 04.10.2018 issued under the signature of respondent Sub Divisional Officer, Areraj, East Champaran, the appellant- petitioner was directed to file show cause within a period of three days with respect to the inspection report dated 04.10.18. On 8.10.2018, the appellant-petitioner submitted the representation with a prayer to exonerate him from all the charges. It has been indicated that due to illness, he could not maintain the up-to-date register. He enclosed medical prescription to support the case.

Again vide notice contained in memo no. 384 dated 13.10.2018 passed by Responden, he was asked to file reply. On 22.10.2018, the appellant-petitioner submitted reply reiterating his earlier version. hereafter, vide an order as contained in memo no. 03 dated 27.10.2018 issued by the respondent, the PDS license no. 01/2016 of the appellant-petitioner was cancelled. This followed CWJC No. 13921 of 2019 by the appellant-petitioner which was disposed of vide an order dated 15.7.2019 directing the respondent District Magistrate, East Champaran to dispose of the appeal within sixty days.

The case of the appellant-petitioner before the Writ Court was that no proper opportunity was given to him before the order for cancellation of PDS license was passed. The second submission was that no beneficiary ever complained against him. Further, the document submitted by him was not at all considered and in that background, the orders need interference.

Court’s analysis and decision:

In his show cause filed on 08.10.2018 and 22.10.2018, this non supply of enquiry report was never agitated and thus it was concluded that a false plea is being raised in the writ petition with mala fide intention of obtaining favourable order, which was also deprecated.

The Court has further taken note of the fact that the respondents gave opportunity to the appellant-petitioner before arriving at a conclusion for cancellation of the PDS license. Thus the court did not interfere with the orders dated 27.10.2018 and 29.11.2019 passed by the SDO, Areraj as well as the District Magistrate, East Champaran respectively.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

0
rajasthan high court

Judicial Disapproval: Court Slams Deceptive Conduct, Imposes Cost, and Orders Relief Allocation in Writ Petition Controversy

Title: Geeta Devi vs State Of Rajasthan

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 620/2020

Coram: JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Decided on: 28/03/2023.

Introduction:

The respondent, Municipal Board, Bilara, has filed the current application seeking the recall of the interim order dated 14.01.2020 issued by the court. The nature of the case or the specific circumstances leading to the interim order .

Facts:

In this case, the respondent, Municipal Board, Bilara, has filed an application seeking the recall of an interim order dated 14.01.2020. During the argument, the respondent’s counsel highlighted that the petitioner, along with four others, had previously filed a joint writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13679/2019), which was listed on 13.09.2019. The court notes that a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had considered the petitioner’s case on that day and issued notices without granting any interim order. The respondent’s counsel argued that on the same day, two other cases challenging the same impugned order were listed, and detailed orders with interim relief were granted. However, in the petitioner’s case, only notices were ordered. The respondent’s counsel further brought to the court’s attention that the petitioner(s) withdrew the earlier writ petition on 10.01.2020 without informing the respondent’s counsel. In response, the petitioner’s counsel argued that there was no concealment, as the petitioner had mentioned the filing and withdrawal of the earlier writ petition in the current application.

To verify the claims, the court examined the records of the earlier writ petitions and found that the petitioner’s case was listed on 13.09.2019, and notices were issued without granting interim relief. The court expressed shock at the petitioner’s actions, noting that after failing to obtain an interim order in the first writ petition, the petitioner withdrew it on the same day she learned about an interim order in another similar case (SBCWP No.15048/2019).

The court criticized the petitioner for not disclosing the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition and filing the current one with the same assertions. It emphasized that withdrawing and filing a fresh writ petition without a material change in circumstances is impermissible in law. The court found that there was no change in facts or pleadings between the two petitions and criticized the petitioner for attempting to mislead the court.

Judgement analysis:

In this judgment, the court expresses strong disapproval of the petitioner’s conduct and her counsel, stating that not only should the interim order be recalled, but the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The court cites an attempt to mislead the court and invokes the principle of res judicata, arguing that the petitioner, by withdrawing and filing a fresh petition without a material change in circumstances, has acted improperly.

The court emphasizes that the petitioner, by misleading the court, has secured an interim order and continued in services for over three years, causing an illegal burden on the public exchequer. As a consequence, the court imposes a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner, payable to the respondent Municipal Board, Bilara. The Board is granted the authority to recover this cost from the petitioner’s deducted or deposited amount in accordance with the law. The recovered amount is directed to be utilized by the Board for the construction or renovation of public toilets for females. Furthermore, the court dismisses the writ petition and the stay petition. While expressing displeasure about the conduct of the learned counsel, the court refrains from taking any action against them, expressing hope that they would exercise caution in the future.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view full judgement

0

Land Dispute Resolved: Court Upholds BOR Decision, Emphasizes Legal Precedents and Rejects Petitioner’s Claims Under Article 227

Title: Amar Chand S/o Moolchand and ORS. Vs State of Rajasthan and ORS.

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9798/2016

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Decided on: 29/03/2023.

Introduction:

The current petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 29.06.2016, issued by the Board of Revenue (BOR) Ajmer in Revision/6763/2011. This order favored the respondents in their revision petition. The case revolves around Mutation Entry No. 192 dated 20.04.2002, issued by the Gram Panchayat in Sandeda, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

Facts:

The current legal matter involves a dispute over a piece of land measuring 29 Bigas 11 Biswa, claimed by both the petitioners and respondents. The petitioners argue that the land belonged to their ancestors, presenting evidence to support their claim. The legal proceedings include an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Piplu, Tonk, which was initially allowed, leading to a remittance of the case to the Tehsildar for fresh consideration. Subsequent appeals and revisions followed, with the Board of Revenue ultimately reversing the earlier decisions in favor of the respondents. The petitioners assert that the Board of Revenue’s decision was based on incomplete consideration, highlighting applications they filed indicating the revision’s ineffectiveness due to the successful challenge of the Tehsildar’s order. They also point out the death of some non-applicants, leading to the abatement of the revision.

In response, the respondents argue that the Civil Court’s decision in Suit No. 60/2003 validated their status as legal successors and upheld the validity of mutation entries. They contend that the orders challenged in the revision become irrelevant in light of the Civil Court’s findings. The respondents emphasize the sub judice nature of the matter before the Board of Revenue, downplaying the significance of the Tehsildar’s order and the mutation entry for legal rights.

The court, in considering the case under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizes the limited scope of interference and the need for sparing use of this jurisdiction. The judgment underscores that such powers are not meant to convert the High Court into an appellate authority but to ensure the subordinate courts adhere to the law. The court refers to precedents, including the principle that orders below are presumed justified if passed after due consideration of facts and materials on record.

Judgement analysis:

In this judgment analysis, the court addresses a dispute over a piece of land by considering the facts and legal arguments presented. The court notes that the Civil Suit No. 60/2003 for declaration was decided against the petitioners by the Trial Court, with specific issues related to the legal successor of the deceased Veerumal and the validity of mutation entries. The Board of Revenue (BOR) took this into account and concluded that once the Trial Court had decided these issues, the matter before the BOR was adjudicated. The court rejects the petitioner’s argument that the Tehsildar’s denovo investigation and fresh order should be considered. It cites legal precedents, emphasizing that mutation entries do not determine land title and are fiscal in nature. The court agrees with the BOR’s reliance on the Civil Court’s decision in Suit No. 60/2003, which addressed title and succession issues concerning Veerumal, and dismisses the significance of any subsequent order by the Tehsildar.

The judgment underscores that the BOR’s decision was well-reasoned, in accordance with legal principles, and did not violate natural justice. The court supports the BOR’s conclusion and finds no grounds for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits, and any pending applications are disposed of.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view full judgement

0

State government acceptance to Pay revision commission does not make it automatically applicable to the employees of BIADA : Patna HC

Title:  Rameshwar Prasad Roy v State of Bihar and ors

Citation: CWJC No. 21787 of 2011

Coram:  Justice Rajiv Roy

Decided On: 09-10-2023

Introduction:

The appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of his contentions on the basis of the 6th Pay Revision Commission by the impugned judgment.

Facts:

It was claimed by the appellant that he was continuing as a Junior Selection Grade Typist/ Head Typist receiving a scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600 which scale was revised to Rs 5000-8000 by the 6th Pay Revision Commission report. The petitioner claims that the revision was once granted but later withdrawn along with arrears on accordance with the same to be paid from the date of pay revision.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The court found that the petitioner is not a Head Typist and the pay revisions in the State Government would not apply to the Bihar, Industrial Area Development Authority unless a decision is taken by the authority to implement the same. The pay revision as applicable to the employees of the BIADA was as per the post in which they were continuing. The mere fact that the State Government had accepted the 6th Pay Revision Commission report would not make it automatically applicable to the employees of the BIADA. As for the arrears, the revision petitions were dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

1 29 30 31 32 33 44