BUNDELKHAND VIDEO CLUB Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO reliefs have been sought in this writ petition: FOR quashing of an order dated 17th September, 1984, which is an order of assessment, and

(2.) FOR the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to restore the properties of the Petitioners illegally seized on 18th July, 1984. In regard to relief No. 1, a Division Bench of this Court on 9th October, 1984, when the writ petition was presented, took the view that since the Petitioners has not only an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal before the State Government, they had already preferred an appeal, which was pending, no case for entertaining a writ petition has been made out. In this view of the matter, the writ petition stands already dismissed by that order, in so far as relief No. 1 is concerned.

(3.) WE have accordingly heard counsel for the parties on the merits of the case, as far as relief No. 2 is concerned. From a perusal of the counter affidavit it appears that the Petitioner had made an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi for a direction to release the articles aforesaid in favour of the Petitioners. The said application was, however, dismissed. The Petitioners thereupon preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Jhansi and the revision also was dismissed on 6th September, 1984. A copy of this order has been filed as Annexure '7' to the writ petition. Its perusal indicates that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi as well as the Sessions Judge, Jhansi came to the conclusion that the seizure of the goods, if it purported to have been made in connection with any offence, was illegal. However, these officers refused to release the goods in favour of the Petitioners, on the representation made on behalf of the Respondents that the said articles had been seized by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Jhansi inasmuch as the Petitioners were under a liability to pay Entertainment Tax. In other words, the seizure was sought to be justified on the ground that it was made for realization of the Entertainment Tax dues. This having been furnished as the reason for the seizure and detention of the articles aforesaid, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi as well as the Sessions Judge, Jhansi rightly came to the conclusion that acting under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they were not entitled to order release of those articles.