← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPT/48/2016dismissed

Om Prakash Jaiswal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-04-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(T) No. 48 of 2016

1. Om Prakash Jaiswal, S/o. Late Shri B.L. Jaiswal, aged about 45 years, R/o. LIG 42, Govind Bhawan, Sai Baba Chowk, Civil Lines, Jabalpur MP -482001 ----Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Principal Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Transport Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi, Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.)

2. The Regional Transport Authority/Taxation Authority, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) ----Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy.G.A.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 04/04/2016 1.

Challenge in this petition is to the show cause notice dated 04.11.2015, issued by the Regional Transport Authority/Taxation Authority, Raipur (Annexure P/1).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents do not have any jurisdiction to issue such notice, therefore, the notice be quashed.

3.

Perusal of the notice would show that it was issued on 04.11.2015, wherein it purports that certain documents were required from the

petitioner and the case was fixed for 10.11.2015. The petition is silent as to what transpired after 10.11.2015. 4.

The petitioner submits that against such notice, representation has been made. Be that as it may. Perusal of Annexure P/1, which sought to be quashed, wherein certain documents have been required is in nature of a show cause notice. The petitioner can raise all the grievances before the concerned authority by which the notice has been issued.

5.

In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere with such show cause notice issued by the respondent as even otherwise the petitioner can approach and appear before the concerned authorities and raise all the grounds & grievances, if so advised. 6.

The petitioner submits that reply has been filed in such case it is obvious that when reply has been filed, the same would be decided according to its own merits by the concerned authority. The instant petition therefore, appears to be premature 7.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the motion hearing itself. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE Balram