- (1.) This appeal has been filed from the impugned order dated 28th February, 2007, passed in W.P. 3180 (W) of 2007. This is the second writ petition filed by the appellant.
(2.) W.P. 3281 (W) of 2005 is the first writ petition filed in 2005 wherein the appellant sought payment by way of instalments of the dues aggregating Rs. 5,64,146/- which was admitted and he sought payment of instalments of Rs. 16,000/- per month. The submissions made culminated in the order dated 29th March, 2005 and by the said order dated 29th March, 2005, the appellant was directed to make payment by instalments of Rs. 50,000/- per month on and from the time specified therein till such time the amount in its entirety was fully liquidated. In case a default was committed of anyone instalment the respondent authorities was entitled to proceed in accordance with law. Two instalments were paid and after making such payment no further payment was made by the appellant. In view of the default clause the respondent K.M.C. was entitled to take steps in accordance with law and this is what it did by filing the bill dated 21st July, 2006 as default was committed. The appellant became liable to make payment of penalty and interest and therefore the bill dated 21st July, 2006 was raised by K.M.C. on the appellant.
(3.) It will be needless to mention that no appeal was filed from the order dated 29th March, 2005 and the said was accepted and in fact had been acted upon. Therefore, all that the appellant was required to do and in fact did file W.P. 3180 (W) of 2007 challenging the LOI dated 21st July, 2006. Reliefs in W.P. 3180 (W) of 2007 therefore must be set out and for ready reference is set out here-in-below:- "a) A Rule do issue out of and under the seal of this Hon'ble Court asking the respondents and each of them to show cause as to why the impugned LOI dated 21.07.2006 which include penalty and interest as well as the purported endorsement dated 16.01.2005 on the letter AC(I)DVN-II/652 dated 04.06. dated 19.01.2006 and endorsement with a back date of 16.01.2005 be not quashed and set-aside and directing them further to act in accordance with law. b) A Writ of Mandamus do issue commanding Municipal Authorities to allow the petitioner to complete instalment payment @ Rs. 50,000/- per month as directed by the Hon'ble Court to liquidate the outstanding of Rs. 5,64,146/- or such amount being directed by the Hon'ble Court subject to payment of current bills being done by the petitioner company." c) A Writ of certiorari do issue asking this Hon'ble Court all records and proceedings in respect of impugned LOI dated 21.07.2006 as well as the documents thereunder so that conscionable justice may be administered to the petitioner by quashing the impugned bills as well as the impugned letter of intimation. d) Writ of prohibition to issue prohibiting the respondents from proceeding with or proceeding further against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned LOI as well as the imposition of penalty and interest thereof. e) Rule in terms of (a) (b) (c ) and (d) be issued; f) Let an interim order of injunction be passed restraining the respondents from giving effector further effect in respect of the impugned LOI dated 21.7.06 as well as further threatened actions as have been done by the Respondents subject to the petitioner shall immediately pay by instalment @ Rs. 50,000/- per month starting February 07 and thereafter end of each month until full payment of outstanding Rs. 5,64,146.00 whereupon let all further proceeding initiated and/or contemplated as threatened by the Respondent authorities be stayed; g) Interim order of injunction in terms of prayer (f) be passed; h) Cost of or costs of incidental to this proceeding be paid by the respondents and each of them; i) To make rule absolute if no cause or sufficient causes be shown by the respondents and each of them. j) Pass such other or further order as your Lordship may seem fit and proper;;