Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8063 of 2018 Petitioner :- Hazel Exim Private Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Yagyadeo Sharma,Deepika Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Mr. Yagyadeo Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
The primary prayer made in the writ petition, reads thus:
"(a). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned demand notice dated 31.01.2018 issued by respondent no.2 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition)."
Though, in the prayer clause, notice dated 31.01.2018 is referred to as Annexure-1, in fact, it is Annexure-5. From bare perusal thereof, it is clear that it is not a demand notice, as claimed by the petitioners. Counsel for the respondent Authority states that it is not a demand notice. We, therefore, asked counsel for the petitioners to produce before us the original copy received by the petitioners from the concerned authority. Counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the photocopy of the said document, which is placed on record bearing page no.29A. From perusal of the photocopy also, it is clear that it is not signed by any authority. In the circumstances, the writ petition against such a document, which, according to the petitioners, is a demand notice, cannot be entertained. We also make it clear that if, at all, petitioners have raised any objection to the so called demand notice (Annexure-5), it is not necessary for the respondent Authority to deal with the same. In the circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed outright. Order accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 AHA (Suneet Kumar, J) (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)