:sSE?a8 f" "<"u?' ' '^ ^ n ^- ^w IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G.J WRIT PETITION(g)NO. ',?) | OF 200^- PETITIONER: -%-"' \^v?^-'" ^sy %^y •^ I? <'s-' RESPONDENTS /- -4 /5 LAFARGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Registered Office at Bakhtawar, 14th Floor, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400001 and a Cement plant at Village Arasmeta , P.0. Gopal Nagar, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) VERSUS 1. STATE OF CHHTnSGARH, Through Chief Electrical Inspector, Near Chhattisgarh College, Byron Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) 2. BOARD OF REVENUE CHHATTISGARH, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Through its Chairmen. 3. COLLECTOR, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) NAIB TAHSILDAR, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ^. WRI'I^PETITIONLUNDBR ARTICLES 226<fi89' OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION ETC OR FOR ORDER (S) OR FOR DIRECTIONJS1 r XI-HC-78 3n^T?iTf^lNi (ISTTSn^TsbHicb •V ^IHCTTSb*1|ch 3ST'<il<iici<<, aii{|<ii|6, fc|cf|y^<, ri^.^>:f: ?{°•..L3.1!?.^. ^ 200 311^1 <4a<*) (l?^'1'^.''!') STBIWHfScTSTI^T 31.1.2007 Shri Moinindra Shrivasta\ Shrivastava, Advocate for the p^ .. Shri Sanjay. S. Agarwal, . Heard. This petition is directed dated 22.11.2006 passed by r^ Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, wheret petitioner under Section 44 (1) 1959 (for brevit/ 'the Code') aj dated 26.9.2006 passed by Revenue Case No.4/A-74/2005-| Briefly stated facts of filed a writ petition bearing demand notice dated 18.10.2009 Janjgir-Champa towards recov^ State Sovernment from the pe^ t)uty Act, 1949. This pe-t-ition| order of Annexure P-32 dated t' itseif, rsserving iiberty to the remedies, as provided under }a, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ashish i^titioner. Qdvemmsnt Advocate for the State. t>i<<Fci41-i iiHdTifteiA'f.RfdiK ^ari^iTsn^T : ^igainst •the order of Annexure P-1 ^spondent No.S-Board of. Revenue, ^y the appeal preferred by the |(e) of the C.6. Land Revenue Code, lainst the order of Annexure P-35 |the Collector, Janjgir'-Champa in p6 has been rejected. the case are that the petitioners W.P. No.6384/05 impugning the issued by the Additionat Tehsildar, :ry of electricity duty due to the ^•itioners under the C.&. Electricity was dismissed by this Court vide 9.12.2005 at the stage of admission petitioners to work out their lsgo.1 the Code. The grievance of the XI-HC-78 3^" ^WM^, W-S\W16, Rldltiy *11*ft^T 9i*1|ch ^[ 200 Sll^l <4^th (^ijd^) 3n^r^ir^i+ BWsn^TgiiiN, g^iTWHfga'sn^r -•T- petitioner in this petition is 19.12.2005 -Hie petitioner submi : of Revenue Recovery Receip' Coliector, Janjgir-Champa, upon the Executive Engineer, Electr Inspsctor, Bi!aspur tSivision, Bi the objection of the petitioner. obj'ection of the petitioner ag observed that since RRC has bi Inspector, Chhattisgarh, Raipur for recovery to his office, as s^ Chhattisgarh, Raipur is the com[ the objection of the petitioner directed to put up his obj'ection the Chief Electrical Inspector. ^ objection preferred by the ol Chief Electrical Inspector, Ch^i and necessary action. With th^t disposedof and the stay order on 20.1.2006 wo.s also setaside.l <tii<<Fd4)-i ^itidT^'fWt'rfSnzTC ^srf^iTgn^T ^at in pursucmce of order dated i^ted his obj'ection against issuance (for brevity 'RRC') before the which an application was filed by cal Safety & (Slvisional Electrical jaspur regarding maintainability of The Collector without deciding the jainst issuance of RRC, summar'ily ^en issued by the Chief EIectrical and the same has been forwarded ich, the Chief Electrical Inspector stent authorit/ to hear and decide and accordingly, the petitioner was against the issuance of RRC before was further" ordered that copy of ijsctor be also forwarded to the lattisgarh, Raipur for adjudication ase observations, the matter was granted in favour of the petitioner V. , P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^ "Miiiici'4, »Tn+f'i<»,Ridiyy *<1*1WI sh+lich ^ 200 Sll^l 4a<»>(l^I^q'a') sn^r^irR'ii'ti (fftT3n^Tsht|icb ??cITWBf?(T3(T^T -?• ispon^lent Learned. Senior Advocatel this Court while dismissing the^ categorically observed that if t!^i the impugned notice of demand, objection before the 3 re; shou'd have requested him to authority issuing certificate und^ their decision and sought for sta^ Fr'om the above observations it ij bound to decide the objection petitioners could not have been^ Inspector, Chhatt'isgarh, Raipur issuing certificate under Sectioiji the Collector/Tehsildar. On the other hand, learrfed State submits that the statamerlt to the Collector by respondent h( was recoverable as arrears of and the role of the Collector/Tet He further submits that the ordered and statement of accodint q)l<l[ia<(1-f *11>«lTfftel^'<Fa|WI< ^'srf^R'SIT^T for the petitioner submits that petitioners' earlier petition had ^e petitioners had any objection to then they should have filed their i.e. Additional Tehsildar, and refer their objections to the ^r Section 145 (1) of the Code for of recovery proceedings titl then. clear that the Collector was duty ^referrsd by the petitioners and referred to the Chief Electrical :or that purpose, as the authorit/ 145(1) of the Code is admittedly Sovernment Advocate for the of account was sent for recovery |o.l, QS the amount to be recovered revenue, as per Electricity Act .(isildar was to effect the recovery. l^asis on which recovery has been has been sent to the Collector Idnd XI-HC-78 ^Sf ri<|<<|d<q, a-rflu'16, fs|C1l«y +<T*T^n sh*rra> ^ 200 311^1 tia»(lcil3'!"^]£T) an^r^TfiaRi (raTSn^Tsbtlicb 5Tt(T8]KHf%cr3:n^T -1 can be objected to before the ther&fore, there is no illegaiity He ver/ fairly submits that he proceeding is kept in abeyance t Chief Eiectrical Engineer, Chhat^is I have heard learned counj impugned orders. It is evident from the petition of the pefitioner wa| petitioners to wor'kout their legiji Code and in pursuance of same the above order, the petitioner objection ond thereafter the recover/ proceedings. Howevej parties the obj'ection of the observation that nature of obje^ be decided by the Chief Electric|al as such, the petitioner was issuance of RRC before Chhattisgarh, Raipur and simul by the petitioner was aiso diredted tlie °niqFii<(1-< tfiiMT^'fW)'<Ri+<ii< ^ail^irgn^r ai^thority issuing the certificate cmd |>r infirmity in the impugned order. has no objection if the recover/ ill the matter is adjudicated by the itllisgarh, Raipur. i^el for the parties and perused the brder of this Cour-t that earlier dismissed with liberty to the remedies, as provided under the as per observation in Para-4 of opprocched the Collector with his ^ollector granted stay against the ', subsequently after hearing the p^titioner was disposed of with an :tion roised by the petitioner may Inspector, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, to put up his objection against Chief Electrical Inspector, It^ineousiy, the objection preferred fdrwarded to the Chief Electrical dncl p^tlti r: XI-HC-78 3^' -^WW^, wS\WIQ, Rrtltiy *11*1C11 Sh*<|ch ^ 200 3l 1^1 ysiqi (>icftd's<'^r) 3n^r^T.6(;icb 11 V" . (rarsir i sRiiR; ^ Roshan/- \c^ ?THTWllf?(T3;I1^T anU Inspector, Chhattisgarh, Raipui action. In view of the above, I there is no il!egality or infirniit/ the objection of petitioner Electrical Inspector, Chhattisgar interference by •rfiis Court. In the result, this petitioi the Chief Elsctricai Inspector, objection of petitioner expeditio hearing to the parties and til against 1'he demond notice/RRC abeyance. Consequently, M.W.P. No.^ disposed of. (tm °bl<<ffl<fl-< tf|t|flT^'te^t<Rl<rc;K ^sri^1T3t1^T for adjudication and necessar/ of the considered opinion thoit in the order" impugned disposing of referring matter to the Chief h, for adjudication, which calls for is disposed of with a direction to ;hhattis9arh, Raipur to decide the io^isly after affording opportunityof ! then the recover/ pr-oceedings |dated 18.10.2005 shail be kept in .< 54/07 & I.A. No.709/07 also stand Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.