Decided on May 15,1997

UNION OF INDIA Respondents


M.SRINIVASAN.C.J. - (1.)These three writ petitions are in challenge of the reversion of rates of various items to be charged by the Cantonment Board, Kasauli and the consequent notices issued to the petitioners calling upon them to pay the revised charges.
(2.)The earliest writ petition is C.W.P. No 10 of 1994 filed by four persons In paragraph 3, it it stated that the petitioners belong to different groups and different professions, In paragraph 7, it is stated that respondent No.3, that is, the Cantonment Executive Officer issued notices upon the petitioners for recovery of taxes vide Annexures P -2, P -3, P -4 and P -5. respectively. A perusal of Annexures P -2 to P5 shows that Annexure P -2 is connected with the first petitioner as evident from the name and description given therein Annexure P -3 is addressed to M/s. Babu Ram Shesh Pal M.B. Kasauli and M/s Madan Gopal and Sons, M.B., Kasauli. None of the petitioners is either of the addressees in Annexure P -3 but learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the third petitioner Shesh Pal Sharma son of Babu Ram Sharma is representing M/s. Babu Ram Shesh Pal, though, there is nothing on record to connect the two. There is no information to us with regard to M/s Madan Gopal and Sons, who is the other addressee in Annexure P -3,. Annexure P4 is addressed to M/s, Daily Needs, but none of the petitioners is stated to be connect ed with the said annexure. Annexure P -5 is addressed to Raj Kumar Singla, Hotel R Maidens, Kasauli It is obviously the fourth petitioner in this case Thus we are able to connect on the basis of the records only Annexure P -2 and Annexure P -5 with petitioners 1 and 4 and on the basis of oral statement made by learned Counsel for the petitioners in the course of arguments Annexure P 3 with the third petitioner Hence, the statement in paragraph 7 of the petition that respondent No. 3 issued notices to the petitioners for recovery of taxes vide Annexures P -2, P -3, P -4 and P -5, respectively, is not correct,
(3.)At the out set, it should be mentioned that the petition is as vague as possible. No relevant particulars have been given about any of the petitioners as to what exactly is the business carried on by them or profession carried on by any of them. Nothing is stated as to how they are made liable to pay the charges and notices have been issued to them It is not in dispute that the petitioners were paying the said charges previously before the present increase. The petitioners are challenging the levy of charges only after they are increased on the ground that the respondent -Board is not entitled to levy such charges.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.