2015 (10) TMI 2056

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....troversy involved in the present case and considering the view that the court is inclined to take in the matter, the matter was taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by this judgment. 3. By this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside of the impugned communication order dated 2.7.2015 (Annexure-P to the petition) whereby the petitioner has been informed that its application for stay of demand is rejected and it is directed to pay the entire outstanding demand of Rs. 1,92,73,490/- in twelve equal monthly installments of Rs. 16 lakh each. 4. The facts stated briefly are that the petitioner is an urban development authority discharging duties under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Develo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act. By the impugned order dated 2.7.2015, the request of the petitioner came to be rejected and the petitioner was directed to pay the entire amount of demand in twelve installments. It appears that the petitioner received a copy of the letter dated 27.7.2015 on 4.8.2015 informing the petitioner about the date of hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioner. On 5.8.2015, the petitioner informed the fourth respondent that it would be approaching the High Court for stay of the recovery of demand and that no coercive steps be taken till then. On 7.8.2015, the fourth respondent without considering the request for adjournment of the petitioner ordered the bank accounts of the petitioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xcept that in the present case, the respondent authorities have resorted to coercive recovery against the petitioner. A perusal of the orders passed under section 220(6) of the Act reveals that in none of the orders, the authorities have applied their minds to the relevant facts necessary for deciding the stay petition under section 220(6) of the Act. 7. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner is a local authority constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. Under the circumstances, one fails to understand the approach adopted by the respondent authorities in resorting to coercive action against the petitioner, without granting it time to approach the higher forum. Having regard to the fact ....