SHAMBHOO NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come up to this Court on second round for quashing of order dated 21-2-93 (27-2-93 is said to be wrongly typed), Annexure-5 to the petition. When the petitioner came up to this Court on the first round then his grievance was that he made an application claiming remission, to respondent No. 3 on the ground that his shops remained closed on account of curfew and that the said application was not deceased of by the respondents but they were pressing for recovery of the licence fee of the whole amount for the months of December 1992, January 1993 (sic)stead. Then by order dated 20th January, 1993 (Annexure-4 to the petition), this Court disposed of the petitioner's writ petition directing respondent No. 3 to decide the remission-application of the petitioner within one month from the date of filing of a certified copy of that order before the said authority.

(2.) Pursuant to order (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order (Annexure-5 to the petition) obtaining that some of the shops of the petitioner were not under curfew and in regard to the remaining shops the petitioner can not claim any remission as there is no provision under the law to grant any remission.

(3.) Section 59 of the U.P. Excise Act reads as under: