M/S Tirupati Roadways v. The State Of Haryana And Others

CWP No.19711 of 2017 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19711 of 2017 Date of decision:05.09.2017 M/s Tirupati Roadways ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. M.P.S.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the demand of stamp duty of `41,77,100/- for the purpose of registration of a contract agreement in respect of rights of 'Boulder', Gravel and sand minor mineral mines/quarries of District Panchkula, Rattewali Block/PKL B 10, as provided under Clause (viii) of the Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 16.06.2017 appended as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition.

2.

It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already filed a representation (Annexure P-3) on 31.07.2017 before respondent No.2, bringing to his notice that the said demand was unwarranted. He further prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and Savita 2017.09.06 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CWP No.19711 of 2017 {2} comprehensive representation with respondent No.2 within a period of three days from today. Further prayer was made that direction be issued to respondent No.2 to decide the same expeditiously within a time bound manner.

3.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the averments made in the petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we dispose of the present writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as sought to be raised in the present writ petition before respondent No.2 within a period of three days from today. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be decided by respondent No.2 within a period of next 10 days after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a speaking order dealing with all the contentions raised by the petitioner, in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 05, 2017 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Savita 2017.09.06 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh