c^ ==^1)z PETITIONER ^' ^.SA\'i-:^" ^<es8?"' ^^"" A'-'' ^ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) -INo.^6^^^10 w.p. m No. RESPONDENTS .*• ./•••" .^ 1) .**'..<•' 2) ^"Rajjak Ali, S/o Late Matbul AU, aged about 36 years, R/o Near Gopal Kirana Store, Raja Talab Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through-The Secretary Transport Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Taxation Authority cum Regional Transport Officer Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA KOR JSSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTIQN QF OTHERAPPROPRIATE WRIT. 01. Particulars ^ i., HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Tt N0. 7064 OF 2010 PetitLoner RajjakAli Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDtA (SB : Hon'bte Mr.Satfsh K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri AJay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General forthe State. ORDERfORAU (Passed on 04th day ofDecember, 2010) 1. The petitioner iinpugns notice (Annexure P-1) all^edly to seize the Bus under Seetion 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991, on non-paymerrt of iilegat demanded tax. 2. Learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner submits that the petitioner hasobtained Infopiation, as perletter dated23.il.2010 (Annexure P-1), whereunder, it has been informed that the payment has been made except to the tune of Rs. 20,960/-. 3. On query, asto whether on receiving the information, the petitioner has approached the authorities for cancellation or modification of the demand notice, the learned counsel categoricatty denies and submits that sinee demand notice is there and the petltioner has received informationabout payment on notice, this Court )s proper and competentCourt toentertain this petition and issue a writ in favour ofthe petitipner. 4. On examination of the documents, it is evident that the petitioner has preferred this petition, withoutapproaehing to the concemed 5. authorities; pointing out the defects in notice. This approach ofthe petitioner amounts to misuse of judicial process. The petitloner has not estabtished any breach of hisright, as the same has not been brought tothe notice of the authorities for amending or canceling of the demand notfee, ifany. Forthe reasons mentloned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed summarily, with cost quantified to be asum of Rs.3000/- payable to ttie High Court Legat Aid Committee. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok