1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD)No.10870 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2of 2011 M.Kalirajan ... Petitioner Vs. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Divisional Preventive Unit, Tiruchendur Range, 32 A T.B.Road, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin. ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice issued by the respondent in O.C.No.190 of 2010 dated 10.03.2011 and the consequential summon issued by the respondent in C.C.No.78 of 2011 dated 17.08.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayakumar For Respondent : No Appearance O R D E R Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent, the Writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2.The petitioner has been awarded a contract for collecting toll fee from the vehicles, which comes into the premises of Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple at Tiruchendur at two pointes. The respondent has issued a impugned notice on 10.03.2011, directing the petitioner to produce certain particulars, regarding the amounts collected for the purpose of deciding about the service tax liability. It appears that the petitioner has given some reply and also approached the respondent. Subsequently, having not been satisfied about the materials submitted, the respondent has issued the impugned summon dated 17.08.2011, directing the petitioner to give the correct statement. As against the said impugned summon dated 17.08.2011, the present Writ petition is filed. 3.Inasmuch as, the respondent has not taken any decision and what is challenged is only a summon, it is the duty of the petitioner to give explanation to the same and it is only after the appropriate orders are passed, the petitioner can approach the authority for the purpose of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 redressal of grievance. Therefore, as on date the petitioner has no grievance and hence, the Writ petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, giving liberty to the petitioner to give the particulars as required under the said summon dated 17.08.2011, the Writ petition stands dismissed. It is needless to state that after the respondent passes orders, it is always open to the petitioner to work out his remedy against such order in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To The Superintendent of Central Excise, Divisional Preventive Unit, Tiruchendur Range, 32 A T.B.Road, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin. + 1 cc to Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Advocate, SR No.33242 W.P.(MD)No.10870 of 2011 23.09.2011 nbj RJ/10.10.11 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/