Pearl Bahl vs Mcd & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 4805 Del

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