2W., 7 w‘x m Tm: men comm or mam; pmxsa AT .mmpun ' S-Iguws / ‘ my. no{2>9 971994‘ SrBEL AWN-1031?? OF INDIA LIMITBD A. campgny, 1n¢orproxjage¢ nnder‘ the In§1ém Camimn‘ies Act, 1956 ’with Hts Head office at Ispat shawan Loam Road; noéw Delhi functiqnnlg at Bhilai'under the name and style steel Autharity of 1n¢£a malted. Elana: steel Plannlahtlaiaaqarn Tel-x511 5. District mtg. (HP) , .P’Mm''xoxsn ghxm‘x Mu‘n‘xc" Puvxax:g,spo ~m Kw _ - 15mm: Coca Ea—Mwa ‘ Thva k ’11“: CDMM‘Ss;°neVIBh;1Q; Municuaql Cc‘rpcm'ix‘m g; a”, ) m L/Z/z’.’ Chie£ :xacuuve Gtf‘icer. ‘ a v Spaclal Area Devuopmant‘ Authoritih c’é‘” 3h11a1-nurg. Distt. mrg (Hp) unspommum t. 26 or 1-H“: caus'rxmx x, _ ‘x ‘ v1 cQAf > f r. «\- \Qg‘ xv 3x / ¢ / @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO 1394 OF 1994 Steel Authority of India Limited Respondents v . r BhiIaIMunicipaICorporatIon8. ‘ Another . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ’(SB : Han‘ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) 'P‘réseht’:- Dr. NfKfshukIa, Senior Advocate with Ms. Awesen Gupfé; Petitioner ‘ Versus Advocate for the oetitioner. None appears for the respondents. ORDER (ORAL) ” (Passed on 24'. day o'fINov‘ember, 201 O) ‘ ‘ Challenge in this petition, is to the demand notice dated 13.94991 (Annexure P48), whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay‘buildlng permission fee and compounding fee for the building constructed by him as per Annexure tto 4 of the notice. According to which, building permission fee was Rs. 4,87,08750 and compounding fee was: Rs. 48,70,875 in total ’Rs. 53,57.962.§O. It was further stated that in default to make above stated deposit, the building constructed would be demolished. 2. This Court, by order dated 23.4.1994, directed that no coercive steps shall be taken, for recovery of the amount as per Annexure P-18 until further orders. tin date, it appears that, neither payments have been made by the petitioner nor any steps have been taken by the then Special Area Development Authonty Now in place of Special Area DevelopmentAuthonty,_ Bhllai Municipal Corporation, has been substituted and despite service \ of notice, none appears for Bhilai Municipal Corporation. L6” 3, Having regard to the facgs situation of the case that the issue is pending consideration for about 16 years and new iocai authority _ has come into existence, it is just and proper to direct the Bhilai Municipai Corporation to consider the matter a fresh for , determination of payment of the aforestated fees, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by issuing notice and» to pass anappropriate order in accordance with law on its own merits. Since the impugned demand notice dated 13.9.1991 could not be given effect to, the, same shall not be given effect to till the above stated direction ls complied with. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. ” Kwgx 1 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' ‘2