/c^d? ^ IN THE HONOURABLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT OF JUOICATURE AT BILASPUR , :Petition.^?@-'/2003. PETITIONER VERSUS PONDENTS^ Wnt Petition. Smt, Anita ^rawat W/o Shri Ashok agrawat,Aged about 35 years, Proprietor: hotel Center Point, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil & District: Korba, Chhattisgarh. State of Chhattisgarh through Cpmmissioner ;dse Department, Govt. of ChhatUsgarh, ^k -f .••"'t<5???'/r / D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Dist: Raipur, G.G. ^y. j^a^'"" p^' i^-^" WRIT PETITIONU/A 226^227 2. DtstrictExcise(lff'cer,Korba, Tahsil &0istnct: Korba, JZhhatti§gffi-h. THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA; .*inn/vljun t-ha r-aiifi^l-itlp>~ m HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARHAT BILA8PUR WRIT PETmON No. 1565 6f2003 PETmONER . ^Smt.AnitaAgrawal. :VERSUS. . ': i ; : . RESPONDENTS : State ofehhattiSgarh & another. ^ WRTT PETmONU,'A226^270F'mECONSTrTUTIONOF INDIA 8B: Han'Ue Shri SatishK. Aetuhotri,J. Present: Shri Raj Kamal Singh, Advocateforthe petitioner. 8hriP.K.Bhaduri,PanetLawyerfbrtheState/respondents. ORDER^QRAD (PasseffQa2ist(layafJuIy,20IQ) ' 1. Bythispetition,theipetitiQnerseeksadu-ectiontO!theresp6nderitstp refund tHe excess ar&ount taken fi-om the petitioner tQwardS the FL-3 license'fee. : ' . ! ' 2. LearnedeoiuteelappearingfOTtIifipetitioneTsubinitsthattNpet^ was g-anted lieense FL-3 license ibrflmnmg a Bar at Korba caty 04 19.04.200r (Antieiaire Wl) ondeppsitiriga sumofRs. 7 lacsaslicense fee fbrtheperiod 01.04.2002 tQ3I.03.2Q03. Shri Singh further subimtsi thatattherelgvMitperiod,fhe^6pulaiionpfKorbaeitywasles laes; One of |fhe condition^ preseribed in 1he notifieation datedj 14.06.2002 (Amie3MreP/2),vffiehCamemtoforcew.e.f 15.06.20(}2y was that the arnount oflicense fee was preserihed to be Rs. 3 lacs fiM- the citywherefhepopulationwasbelow31aes. ? II 3. Shri Smgh fiirfher submits fhat the petitipner is eritilled to rejEund; ofjthe ' excess amount of license fee ideposited by him fbr Ihe period fi^>m 15.6.2002 tU131.Q3.2003as fheBc^e^fee wasr^duced fi^tnRs. 7 N;s -to Rs^3 lacs^Atthjs'stage, iwit&out^p^ l:^H':;!J;''i •;i.,'..;:' ^ :.\&\ i^ / I, v^ suhm^ the resppndesit |authianties, andsm|turn, ihey may be directed-lt) sQHS^d^r| i- ii!.- ;!' IKS i' II! 'Ki,! and deeide his representation for refimd of the excess amount, as expeditiouslyaspossible.inaccordance'withlaw. Leamed couiKel appearing forthe State/respondents submits tfaat in fhe event, a representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided in aeeorda.nce with law as early as possible. In view ofthe above, the vmt pefitioiMS disposed ofwith a du-ection to the respondent authorities that m the event, tfae petitioner makes a representation, the same may be eonsidered aad decided as expeditiously !as possible, preferably within a period of sight iweeks &om the date |o(freceipt of a representation aud a copy oftiiis OKiei^ m accordance vnth law and in fhe light of notification dated i 14.06.2002 (AnnexureP/2). . . Sd/- Satish'K;<Agmhotri _ Judge •.l.^~ •ir:'iH:1 :1 "^i ..;(• ""4 .i Nt:lr !:;1!!| 111