- (1.) HEARD .
(2.) THE Petitioner earlier filed a petition before the Lucknow Bench of this Court being Misc. Bench No. 2710 of 2010 where an interim order was passed on 30.3.2010, which reads as under: Admit. Notice on behalf of opposite party No. 1 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Shashi Prakash Singh has accepted notice on behalf of the O.P. No. 2, Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan learned Counsel has also filed Vakalatnama on behalf of O.P. No. 2, Sri R.C. Tiwari has accepted notice on behalf of O.P. No. 4, Sri N.C. Upadhyay and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 9. Issue notice to opposite parties. Ten days' time allowed to file counter affidavit. Secretary, Nagar Vikas, Government of U.P. is directed to file his personal affidavit giving parawise reply to the writ petition within ten days. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within three days thereafter. List on 19.04.2010 along with W.P. No. 2534 (M/B) of 2010 and other connected matters. The writ petition may be heard peremptorily on next date of listing. While challenging the validity of the impugned Notification, it has been submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that State Government lacks jurisdiction to frame the rules with regard to imposition of tax on hoardings. It has also been submitted that the Respondents are proceeding ahead to auction the places for hoardings has been installed by the Petitioners. Once the Government has fixed certain rates and there appears to be no justification to proceed with the auction, more so when according to the Petitioners' counsel, the hoardings have also been installed on private buildings and places. In view of above, subject to payment of tax given in the impugned Notification, the Petitioners' hoardings shall not be removed till the next date of listing. The tax paid by the Petitioners in pursuance to impugned Notification shall be subject to further orders passed by this Court. That matter was thereafter referred to a larger Bench. The Full Bench heard the matter and reserved the judgment.
(3.) THE Petitioner's grievance is that without following the procedure, the Respondents are demanding the tax in terms of the said notification.;