Court grants petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, quashes order, citing lack of natural justice and reasoning.

The court allowed the petition seeking writs of Certiorari and Mandamus, quashing the impugned order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioner's argument of arbitrary rejection under the SVLDR scheme was supported by Circulars and judicial precedents, leading to the court's decision in their favor despite the respondent's opposition. The court found the impugned order deficient in natural justice principles and lacking reasoning, prompting its annulment for reconsideration in accordance with the law and relevant provisions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petition seeking writs of Certiorari and Mandamus to challenge an email and seek waiver of interest and penalty.
2. Request for writs of Mandamus to halt proceedings and prevent coercive measures during the petition's pendency.
3. Prayer for ad-interim reliefs and other appropriate orders.
4. Interpretation of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR scheme) eligibility.
5. Allegation of arbitrary rejection of petitioner's application under the SVLDR scheme.
6. Argument based on Circulars and judicial precedents supporting petitioner's entitlement to SVLDR scheme benefits.
7. Respondent's contention of no merit in the petition.
8. Assessment of the impugned order's validity and compliance with natural justice principles.
9. Decision to allow the petition, quash the impugned order, and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought writs of Certiorari and Mandamus challenging an email and requesting waiver of interest and penalty under the SVLDR scheme. The petitioner argued that the rejection of their declaration under the SVLDR scheme was arbitrary. The respondent contended that the petition lacked merit. The court noted the impugned order's deficiencies, deeming it non-speaking and unreasoned. The court found the order violated natural justice principles and ordered its quashing. The court relied on Circulars and judicial precedents to support the petitioner's eligibility for SVLDR scheme benefits despite interest demands. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and remitted the matter for reconsideration by the respondents in compliance with the law and relevant provisions, Circulars, and judgments.

---