J.Kondanna v. The Commissioner And 3 Others
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO: 13328 OF 2022 Between:
J.Kondanna, S/o. J.Chandraiah, Aged about 70 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Rt/o. H-No.10-150, Kothakota Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District. ...PETITIONER AND '1 . The Commissioner, Kothakota Municipality, Wanaparthy District.
2. The Kothakota Municipaity, rep by its Chairman, Kothakota Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District.
3. The District Collector, Wanaparthy.
4. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to lt/unicipal Administration Urban Development, TS Secretriat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the impugned notice in file no. 4111312020, dated 3011212021 of lhe 1st Respondent and set aside the same by declaring it as illegal and contrary to law in consequence thereof to direct the 1st respondent to extend the contract of collecting tax (Tai Bazar) tor Kothakota Municipality to the Petitioner in view of the lockdown imposed by the State Government due to spread of Covid-19 virus, Road Widering Works, Drinage Works conducted by the 1st Respondent by issuing Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 1St respondent to continue the contract( for collecting tax(Tai Bazar tax) for the period April2o22, March-2023 to Petitioner for Kothakota Municipality by suspending the impugned notice of the 1st Respondent in file no. A111312020, dated 30t1212021, pending final pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. V.V.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No's.1 &2: SRI N.PRAVEEN KUMAR (SC FOR MC) counsel for the Respondent No's. 3 & 4: GP FOR Municipal Administration Urban Development The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No.13328 of 2o22 ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records relating to the impugned notice in File No. Al ll3l2O2O, dated 30.12.2021 of the lst respondent and set aside the same by declaring it as illegal and contrary to law and consequently to direct the l"t respondent to extend the contract of collecting tax (Tai Bazarl for Kothakota Municipality to the petitioner in view of the lockdown imposed by the State Government due to spread of Covid- 19 virus.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.V.
Narasimha Rao submits that the petitioner is a successful bidder for collecting tax for Kothakota Municipality from April 2021 to Mardn 2O22. The said contract was given on 3O.O3.2O21 in the open auction for an amount of Rs.23,05,O0O/-. The petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 1 ,93,O83/ - per month and his house was also mortgaged with the lst respondent as security. It is submitted that the petitioner could pay the amount till March 2O2l , but unfortunately, due to pandemic and in view of the lockdown imposed by the State as well as the Central Government as
there is no business for six months, the petitioner is unable to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 10,44,58 1 / - from May to November 2021. It is submitted that taking advantage of the same, the respondent authorities issued notice demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 11,36,567/-. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has biought this fact to the notice of Respondents I aod 2 and made a representation on O9.O4.2O2I, but they failed to consider the same. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the impugned notice issued by the respondents.
3.
Heard Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality.
4.
In this case, admittedly, there was a contractual obligation between the parties and by virtue of the same, the petitioner has to pay certain amounts to the respondents. The respondents have issued several notices to the petitioner on 18.O8.2O2L, 2I.Og.2O2l, 29.Og.2021 and 22.11-2021, in spite of all the notices, the petitioner failed to respond. Finally, the respondents issued the impugned notice on 30.12.2021 asking the pelitioner to pay the amount, but the petitioner without responding to the earlier notices, have come before this Court. During the course of arguments, it is also urged that this Court
may grant some more time to pay the arrear amount. This Court is not in a position to appreciate any of the contentions and the petitioner could not make out a ground for grant of a writ more in the nature of mandamus. The petitioner ought to have given his explanation to the notices issued by the respondents. Looking at the conduct of the petitioner, who has kept quiet from 18.08.202 1 till now and comes up with the plea, which is not legally-tenable, this Court linds no reason to set aside the impugned notice.
5.
The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
6.
The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
I SD/-I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANTffEISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sec/r61./ orrrcen To, '1. One CC to SRl. V.V.NARASIMHA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 2.oneCCtoSRI.N.PRAVEENKUMAR(SCFoRIT/C),Advocate[oPUC]
3. Two CCs to GP FOR Municipal Administration urban Development,High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT]
4. Two CD CoPies.
5. One Spare CoPY.
GB BS \^ \Y
HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 510312022 F l tiE S14 c.
$ 3" 1t lur rtl]zl x x::y* lt
ORDER
WP.No.13328 of 2022 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS.