1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8901/2008 Ram Niwas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 24th April 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.R.S.Mankad, for the petitioner. ..... BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider any interference in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction in this matter. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Raichur, Karnataka has sent a requisition for recovery of certain amount said to be due against the petitioner. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said outstanding amount, of Rs.8,776/-, is said to be of the arrears of sales-tax due against the partnership firm. The Revenue Authorities in district Nagaur have adopted the proceedings for recovery of the said amount under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It appears that the Collector, Nagaur issued necessary orders for recovery of the amount from the petitioner to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagaur; and the prayer as made by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery came to be rejected by the said Sub-Divisional Officer on 2 22.12.1994. The said order dated 22.12.1994 was attempted to be challenged by the petitioner by way of a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. However, the Board has proceeded to reject the revision petition by the impugned order dated 24.12.2008. The learned Member of the Board has observed that the Sub-Divisional Officer was required to proceed as per the instructions issued by the Collector; and if the petitioner had any ground to urge, appropriate proceedings ought to have been adopted before the Collector concerned. Assailing the orders aforesaid, it is contended that the respondents have not adopted the proceedings against the other partners of the firm concerned; that no recovery could be made against the petitioner under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act; and that his objections have not been decided by the authorities concerned. Though the petitioner has not placed on record the recovery certificate as issued by the concerned Commercial Taxes Officer, Raichur, Karnataka but then, from the submissions as made, it appears that there had been certain dues recoverable by the said Authority and, for the petitioner having his property in the State of Rajasthan, the recovery proceedings have been adopted against the petitioner on the 3 requisition of the said Authority from the State of Karnataka. Such recovery proceedings cannot be said to be wholly without jurisdiction. The suggestions about the recovery being attempted only against the petitioner and not against the other partners remains uncertain and do not make out a case that no recovery could be effected against the petitioner at all. Though it is contended that his objections have not been considered and decided but in the present case, this Court is unable to find any specific objection of substance requiring consideration by the Authorities concerned. In any event, the present matter does not appear to be fit one for issuance of any writ, order or direction at the instance of the petitioner. This writ petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni