Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 350 of 2016 Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Pratap Singh,Ajay Kr. Srivastava,Sanjay Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The instant petition has been filed seeking decision on the petitioner's objection to the notice dated 10.12.2015. The petitioner had filed objection dated 15.3.2016 relying on a partition decree.
Since learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear in the matter when the matter was heard on 21.4.2016, the below quoted order dated 21.4.2016 came to be passed on this petition:
"The sole relief that has been pressed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the objections filed by the petitioner on 15 March 2016 in connection with the assessment of the house tax done by the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar should be decided and no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the demand notice dated 10 December 2015.
It is pointed out by Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Nigam that the petitioner has not challenged the assessment order and has merely challenged the consequential demand notice issued by the Nagar Nigam. His contention is that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 472 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 against the assessment order.
The petitioner has merely referred to the demand notice dated 10 December 2015 that has been issued as a consequence of the assessment order.
We, therefore, do not consider it appropriate to entertain this petition in view of a statutory alternative remedy being available to the petitioner.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
By means of the review application, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no order has been passed on the petitioner's objection and therefore, there is no remedy of appeal available. Thus, observation made in the order, of which review is sought, is stated to be unenforceable.
We find prima facie, merit in the submission so advanced. Also, we find no useful purpose would be served in issuing notice to Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar on the review application, in view of the order we propose to pass.
The review application is disposed of with the direction that in case, the petitioner's objection dated 15.3.2016 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) is still pending before the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar, the same may be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of production of copy of this order.
It is further provided that if the said objection has already been dealt with on merits, no further order is required to be passed by the said authority.
Order Date :- 21.9.2021 M. Tariq