NATRAJ CHHABIGRIH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. M. Lal, J. By this second writ peti tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Natraj Chhabigrih seeks an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 5-11- 1996 and 20-12-1996 (Annexure 4 and 7 to the writ petition) and also seeks a suitable order, direction or writ declaring the proviso to Section 3 (A) (1) of U. P Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE actual controversy involved in this petition is concluded by the Full Bench decision of this Court passed on the writ petition filed by the same petitioner being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 805 of 1995, Natraj Chhabigrih v. State of U. P, decided on 22-3-1996 [since repected is 1996 (2) JCLR 968 (A11) (FB)], whereby considering the validity of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the Act in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Full Bench of this Court held that this provision is intra vires and is a valid piece of legislation and overruled the earlier decision rendered by the Division Bench in Kamla Palace v. State of U. P, dated 10-7-1995 : [ Since reported in 1995 (2) JCLR 710 (A11)].

(3.) HERE it is necessary to make clear that it is not that this view is being taken by this Court for the first time in this case rather this view is settled since long by this Court as well as by the Apex Court in plotnera of decisions some of which are being referred hereto below.