Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1179/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1179 of 2011
IN
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No.2417 of 2011
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 8488 of 2011
=========================================================
RASHTRIYA
ISPAT NIGAM LTD - Appellant(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DAXESH T DAVE for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR PG DESAI WITH HIMANSHU K PATEL for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 03/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
This
appeal has been preferred by appellant Rashtriya Ispat Nigam, a
Government of India Undertaking against the order dated 23.3.2011
passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2417
of 2011. By the said order, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition and refused to direct the respondents to refund the amount
of octroi as was prayed by the appellant.
We
have heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing
for the respondent – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
From
the record and finding of learned Single Judge, it would be evident
that the appellant claimed refund of octroi with respect to some 3000
import bills. It was alleged by respondent Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation that the particulars were not supplied and claim was
vague. The respondent also took plea that some of the bills are time
barred and, therefore, refund cannot be made. Learned Single Judge,
having noticed the aforesaid stand taken by respondent Corporation,
observed that there is disputed questions of fact in respect of
import bills, therefore, refused to exercise power under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
Heard
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
We
are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by learned Single
Judge as it is not possible to decide the money claim as made by
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, taking into consideration the fact that Rashtriya Ispat
Nigam Limited is an undertaking of the Central Government and that
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is a local authority, we are of the
view that they should hold meeting and settle the dispute instead of
forcing the appellant to move before a Civil Court of competent
jurisdiction. Appellant will bring to the notice of the Corporation
each and every bill and in a joint meeting, they will try to finalize
the amount if any to be refunded or paid by the Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation. Reasoned order is required to be passed by Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation if any of the claim out of the bill is not
entertained. It is expected that meeting will be held between the
officers both the parties in near future and the dispute will be
resolved amicably between the parties within reasonable period
preferably within three months. The Appeal and Civil Application
both stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.
No cost.
(S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,CJ)
(J.B.PARDIWALA,J)
pathan
Top