Allahabad High Court
M/S Parashar Filling Station And 2 ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 July, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:105825-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18226 of 2024
Petitioner :- M/S Parashar Filling Station And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vibhanshu Vaibhav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Ankit Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Vibhanshu Vaibhav, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and 4.
2. Present writ petition is preferred with assailing the validity of impugned demand notice dated 30.04.2024 in relation to Sub-Division Charge to the tune of Rs.2,54,117/- and impact charge to the tune of Rs.30,63,960/-, issued by respondent no.4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his prayer only to the levy of sub division charge and impact charge demanded under the impugned notice dated 30.04.2024 in respect of building plan submitted by the petitioners for approval before the Development Authority. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgement and order dated 28.04.2023 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5645 of 2015 (Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and another vs. Rajesh Sharma and others) and connected appeals in that batch of petitions. Specifically, it has been stated, the above decision has been passed, amongst others, in Civil Appeal No.4489 of 2014 to which Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20258 of 2018 (Shri Ram Educational and Charitable Trust vs. Vice Chairman Muzaffarnagar Development Authority) also. Thus, in short, it has been submitted that the matter is no longer res integra and the controversy is covered by the above described decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. For ready reference, the decision of the Apex Court (paragraph 12-15) is quoted below:-
"12. Under the circumstances, in exercise of powers under Section 41 of the Act, 1973, the State could not have issued the orders permitting/allowing the Development Authorities to levy the charges/fees other than provided under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the levy of fees/charges provided under Section 15(2-A), all of them have been specifically defined under Section 2 of the Act, 1973. Therefore, the intention of the Act is to levy only those charges/fees provided/mentioned under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973, otherwise the other charges also would have been defined under the Act, 1973. Levy of such other charges can be said to be hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of India. As per Article 265 of the Constitution of India, there shall not be any levy of tax/fees/charges except in accordance with law and/or as provided under the statute. Under the circumstances and in view of the above, the High Court has rightly set aside the various demand notices by way of levy of inspection fee/supervision fee while granting of sanction lay out plan, sub-division charges, impact fee etc.
13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the levy of development charges/fees by the various Development Authorities of the State of U.P. is hereby confirmed. The decision of the High Court in the case of Rekha Rani (supra) (Civil Appeal No. 4489/2014) quashing and setting aside the levy of development charges/fees is hereby quashed and set aside to that extent. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the demand notices/levy of other charges/fees, namely, inspection fee/supervision fee while granting of sanction layout plan, sub-division charges, impact fee etc. (other than development charges/fees) are hereby confirmed.
14. It is observed and directed that any amount already paid by the respective original writ petitioners other than the development charges/fees and the charges provided under Section 15(2-A), now be refunded to the respective original writ petitioners with 6% interest per annum, within a period of twelve months from today, of course after adjusting development charges/fees. It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on the levy of betterment charges, which, as such, is otherwise permissible under section 35 of the Act, 1973. It is also made clear that the order of refund shall be applicable only with respect to those original writ petitioners/persons who have challenged the demand notices and who were before the High Court. It is also observed and it is made clear that if any individual/original writ petitioner has any other grievances, it will be open for them to approach the High Court by way of independent proceedings.
15. The present appeals stand disposed of in terms of the above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 12.12.2023 passed inWrit C No.42800/2023 (Kartik Agrawal and another vs. State of U.P. and others) in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Mathura Vrindava (supra) and as such, he prays that present writ petition is also liable to be disposed of in terms of the decision of Apex Court in Mathura Vrindava (supra).
5. So far as the factual and legal controversy, the same is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are with the agreement of the judgement and order dated 12.12.2023. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgement passed by the Apex Court in Mathura Vrindava (supra).
Order Date :- 1.7.2024
A. Pandey
