Markandey Katju, Prakash Krishna, JJ. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed for a direction commanding the respondents to return/restore back possession of the properties at plots Nos. A -45 to A -50, sector 16, Noida to the petitioner and for other reliefs. We have heard learned counsel for parties.
(2.) ON the last occasion, that is, on 25th March, 2003, when the case was taken up a copy of the letter dated 26th February, 2003 was produced by the counsel for the petitioner. The said letter was written by the Deputy Commissioner Trade Tax, Gautam Budh Nagar to the District Magistrate wherein it was mentioned that there was no outstanding trade tax dues against the petitioner and, therefore, the possession of the aforesaid plots, which were taken up by the Trade Tax Department should be restored to the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid letter, on 25th March, 2003, we issued an interim mandamus to the respondents requiring them to hand over possession of the aforementioned plots to the petitioner forthwith or to show cause by the next date fixed. Today the learned standing counsel has filed a supplementary counter affidavit annexing thereto copies of two letters dated 26th February, 2003 and 26th March, 2003. In paragraph 23 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount due to the Department but still the aforesaid properties are continuing in occupation of the respondents No. 2 and 3. In the supplementary counter -affidavit filed today on behalf of the respondents in paragraph 3 the said fact is not disputed and as a matter of fact Sri Arvind Srivastava, Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, who is present in Court has not disputed the aforesaid averments made by the petitioner. Therefore, at present there is no dispute regarding any amount of trade tax does being outstanding against the petitioner. On the other hand, the Department has come up with the case that they are requesting the petitioner to take possession of the aforesaid plots. Sri B.N. Singhvi and Sri Shambhoo Chopra learned counsel, for the petitioner, have submitted that the petitioner will take possession of the properties in question on 9th April, 2003. In view of the aforesaid facts nothing now remains to be decided in the writ petition and the respondents will hand over peaceful possession of the properties in question to the petitioner on 9th April, 2003. The writ petition is disposed off accordingly. We are constrained to observe in this petition that the respondents have not acted in a fair manner. When the petitioner had paid the entire amount due as far back as in August, 2002 the respondents should have immediately handed back the property in dispute to the petitioner in August, 2002 itself but they have retained it for over 7 months illegally. The authorities are expected to act in a fair manner so that they may win the faith of the public. We, therefore, hope and trust that the Trade Tax Authorities will not in future give any occasion for compelling the parties to file such writ petitions in this Court which would not have been necessary had they acted in a fair manner. The learned standing counsel will communicate our displeasure in this connection to the Commissioner, Trade Tax. Uttar Pradesh, who will in turn communicate this order to all the Trade Tax Authorities so that they may in future not do anything which gives rise to an occasion calling for adverse comments from this Court. Let a copy of this order be given to the parties on payment of usual charges by tomorrow. ;