Pearl Bahl vs Mcd & Anr

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 4805 Del
Judgement Date : 16 August, 2012

Delhi High Court
Pearl Bahl vs Mcd & Anr on 16 August, 2012
Author: G. S. Sistani
04.
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 3351/2006

       PEARL BAHL                                      ..... Petitioner
                          Through :   Ms.Anjali K. Varma, Adv.

                    versus

       MCD & ANR                                       ..... Respondents
                          Through :   Mr.Himanshu Upadhyay and
                                      Mr.Shivam Tripathi, Advs.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

                  ORDER
%                  16.08.2012

    1. Rule.

2. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus for quashing of the show cause notice No.Tax no.1323A dated 16.2.2006, by which, a demand was raised by the respondents in the sum of Rs.1,40,241/- as on 31.3.2004.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present writ petition is premature as the Assessor and Collector is yet to deal with the objections filed by the petitioner and it is only after the final order is passed would the petitioner have a cause of action in case the petitioner is so aggrieved. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no final order has yet been passed by respondents.

W.P.(C) 3351/2006 1/2

4. After some hearing in the matter, it is agreed by counsel for the parties that either the petitioner or her duly authorized representative will appear before the Assessor and Collector, South Zone, MCD, on 27.8.2011 at 3.00 p.m. The petitioner will be entitled to file such other documents, which may be relevant. The Assessor and Collector will fix a date for hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter. Needless to say in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order which may be passed by Assessor and Collector, the petitioner may assail the same in accordance with law. It is also agreed that till the matter is finally decided by the Assessor and Collector the petitioner will continue to deposit tax as applicable to rural areas.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents prays that the costs imposed upon the respondents may be waived. Counsel for the petitioner has no objection to this. Accordingly, in view of the reasons explained by counsel for the respondents and the stand taken by counsel for the petitioner, costs imposed upon the respondents stand waived.

6. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of in view of above.




                                                                 G.S.SISTANI, J
AUGUST     16, 2012
msr




W.P.(C) 3351/2006                                                   2/2