- (1.) NOTICE on behalf of respondent No. 1 has been accepted by Sri Vineet Pandey and on behalf of respondent no. 2, by Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan. Wholly misconceived and ill -drafted petition has been filed by the petitioner, which does not disclose any reason, much less any legal ground for intervening in the matter under Article of the Constitution of India.
(2.) IT appears that some recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner with respect to excise dues, for which an order was passed on 23 -3 -07. According to the petitioner, this order was communicated to it on 27 -7 -09 and thereafter the petitioner had filed an appeal, as mentioned in the writ petition, which is pending before the appellate authority. The petitioner's counsel has only argued that the petitioner is prepared to make the deposit of the amount demanded, but we fail to appreciate that if the petitioner is willing to deposit the amount due, why the same would not be accepted by the authority concerned. Apart from this, Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan, appearing for respondent no. 2, has pointed out, that neither the order by which, the petitioner is aggrieved has been filed nor any relief has been claimed against the said order. Moreover, according to the petitioner, it has preferred an appeal/representation before the Tribunal, which is pending. There is no occasion for the petitioner to approach this Court at this stage.
(3.) WE have considered the aforesaid plea and we are of the view that in case the petitioner seeks any interim relief or wants to deposit the amount due, it can approach the Tribunal, where the matter is pending. The writ petition is dismissed.;