_..-*-l(»'«, ^ o HIGH COIJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRrTPETITIQN No. 1554 of2002 PETITIONER Anut Anil Chopra son of Late Shri G,L,Cliopra, Sardar Decent, Jabalpur. Tlii'ougii Manager Rajkimiar Bhalla, Aged 60 years, Son ofNauhariya Ram. Dard, Band Box Laundry, Ward No. 29, Apapura- Durg, Talisil and District Durg. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Municipal Corporation, Durg, through the Coimiiissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg. 2. Revenue Officer, Municipal Coiporation, Durg. 3. The State Govenmieiit of Cliliattisgarh, Tlii'ougli The Secretaiy, Nagariya -Prashashan and Vikas Miiiistiy, D.K.S Bhawaa Raipur(C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Sliri K. Agmliotri, .1 Present: Sliri Soeikant Veniiia, Advocate for the petitioner. Slm Aimito Das, Panel Lav^yer or the State/respondent No. 3. (ORAL) (Passed on 21st day of Augiist, 2009) 1. The-petitioner impugns the legality and validity ofthe notice dated 26 June, 2002 (Aimexure P/l) where.by the petitioner has been called upon to deposit the outstaiiding water tax and surcharge to the time of Rs. 28,624/-. Sliri Vemia subiiiits that the petitioner has already deposited a part ofthe said amoimt and as such, nothmg is payable. 2. Be that as it may, the petitioner ought to have responded to the notice and approached the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Revenue OfFicer, Mimicipal c-01poration. Durg- before approaching this Court. Ifthere is any deficiency m payment of tax, that should be examined by the revenue offlcers on the representation ofthe petitiosier. .3. T'hus, this petition caimot be entertamed at this stage.' It is for the petitioner to approach the airthorities and explain the facts asto vAether he has deposited the legal amount due, in accordance with law. 4. Accordingly, this petition being devoid ofmerit is dismissed. M(W)P No. 1386/:20(B, is also dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge