Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 60837 of 2005 Petitioner :- M/S Upper Doab Sugar Mills Thru' Occupier Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Chaudhary,Rahul Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vipin Sinha
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Counter & Rejoinder Affidavits have been exchanged in this matter.
Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against a demand made by the Divisional Magistrate, Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar dated 08.09.2005 by which he had issued a citation for collection charges at the rate of 10% from the petitioner. The petitioner has stated in paragraph no.28 of the writ petition that no steps were ever taken under the provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for the recovery of cane dues for the year 2003-04 and, therefore, the demand of recovery charges was wholly arbitrary and unjustified.
In the counter affidavit filed by the State it has been categorically stated in paragraph no.10 that the principal amount was deposited by the petitioner on 08.09.2005.
From the said averment it appears that the petitioner has voluntarily deposited the cane dues and actually speaking no process was undertaken by the State to demand the collection charges.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a full bench decision of this Court in the case of Mahrajwa and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2013) 1 UPLBEC 56 wherein this Court has approved the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Asha Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of U.P. and others and M/s Chemopulp Tissues Limited vs. State of U.P. and others wherein it has been held that the recovery charges could not exceed more than Rs.3.75.
Reference may be had to the dictum of this Court in Maharjwa (supra) where in paragraph no.38 the Court had held that at the most the fee, which is prescribed for issuance of various processes may be realized from a party but the demand made at the rate of 10% is not justified. The demand is, therefore, set aside by this Court.
The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
Order Date :- 18.4.2017 S.P.