CHANDRA KIRAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri J.K. Sinha and Sri Adarsh Mehrotra, for the respondents. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20th march, 2009 (Annexure-1), whereby the income certificate granted to the petitioner has been rescinded. Short facts giving rise to the present writ application are that the petitioner applied for grant of income certificate claiming her annual income as Rs.18,000/-. The application filed by the petitioner was considered and income certificate dated 13.08.2004 was granted to her. Later on, a complaint was made stating therein that her income was more and the petitioner had purchased land in the year 2004 and accordingly the income certificate granted to her be rescinded. The authority on receipt of the same, gave notice to the petitioner and on consideration of the materials on record by the impugned order, rescinded her income certificate.. Mr. J.K. Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that petitioner was given income certificate after due verification and the same ought not to have been rescinded. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Sinha. It came to the notice of the authority that petitioner's income was more than Rs.18,000/- and hence nothing prevented the authority to take decision rescinding the income certificate. Mr. Sinha then submits that the petitioner possesses 4 bighas of land and from that the income of more than Rs.18,000/- is not expected. We are afraid the present proceeding is not an appropriate proceeding to go into the income of an individual from the land possessed by her. It requires investigation of facts which cannot be appropriately gone into in writ proceedings. Mr. Sinha lastly submits that petitioner was granted income certificate and there being no case of concealment on her part, the authority ought not to have rescinded the certificate. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Sinha also. It came to the notice of the authority that the petitioner had more income than Rs.18,000/- and after giving notice to the petitioner, impugned order has been passed. We are of the opinion that this case does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition stands dismissed.