IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16095 of 2010 PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE J.SINHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SADIPUR, POLICE STATION- GOREYA KOTHI, DISTRICT- SIWAN :--- PETITIONER. . Versus 1. PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DISSOLVED) THROUGH THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ‘C’ BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, POLICE STATION- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA 2. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ‘C’ BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, POLICE STATION- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA. 3. ASHOK KUMAR SINHA, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SENIOR AUDIT OFFICER, PRESENTLY DESIGNATED AS ‘CONTROLLER OF MUNICIPAL FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS” IN THE OFFICE OF THE PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BUDHA MARG, POLICE STATION- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA. 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 5. JOINT SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, POLICE STATION- SACHIVALAYA, DISTRICT- PATNA :-- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 28.09.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) who has not filed any counter affidavit inspite of indulgence granted by this Court to file counter affidavit under orders dated 24.09.2010. In the circumstances, the Court is proceeding to dispose of the matter on the basis of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, earlier served as Chief Accounts Officer of the Patna Regional Development - 2 - Authority (Dissolved), is aggrieved by the contents of Letter No. 3340 dated 12.08.2009, Annexure-2 of the Joint Secretary of the Urban Development and Housing Department of the State Government addressed to Municipal Commissioner, Patna as also from the contents of Letter No. 739 dated 30.04.2010, Annexure-7 of the Municipal Commissioner addressed to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, whereunder with reference to Paragraph-21 of the Audit Observation made in A.G’s Audit Report 499/2008-09 for the period 2006-07 and 2007-08 it has been stated that petitioner is responsible for levy of Income-tax on the P.R.D.A. to the tune of Rs. 215.39 lacs as he served the P.R.D.A. as Chief Accounts Officer. Petitioner has placed paragraph 21 of the aforesaid Audit Objection as Annexure-1 to this application. 3. Having perused the said Audit Objection it does not appear that petitioner has been held liable for levy of income-tax on the P.R.D.A. to the tune of Rs. 215.39 lacs. It is, thus, evident that the contents of the aforesaid two letters, Annexures 2 and 7 does not reflect the true and correct position as indicated in paragraph-21 of the aforesaid Audit - 3 - Objection. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with observation that the contents of the aforesaid two letters will have no bearing on the prospect of the petitioner as the two letters have been issued by the authorities without granting the petitioner opportunity of being heard. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)