KARTICK CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter arises out of a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner who is a partner of Messrs. Das and Co. had been running a business for manufacturing bricks with prior approval of the state Government for about 10 years. The petition extracted earth in 1990-91 but he did not extract any earth in 1991-92. A notice dt. 22nd june, 1992 was sent to the petitioner for finalisation of arrear dues on account of royalty for extraction of earth for manufacturing bricks. The demand notice has been marked Annexure "a" to the writ petition. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner attented the office of the respondent no. 2 (D. L. L. R. O. Howrah) and it was settled that 31500 cft. earth was extracted for the year 1991 and no earth was extracted for the year 1991-92 and this position was duly accepted by the respondent no. 2 by a letter market Annexure "b" to the writ petition. On 17th July, 1992, the respondent no. 2 again sent a notice of demand for arrears of royalty for the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. The said notice of demand has been annexed with the writ application as Annexure "c". Immediately on receipt of the letter marked Annexure "c", the petitioner made a representation before the respondent no. 2 affirming, inter alia, his earlier position. He made a representation for clarification of the anomolies about the demand of royalty. Copy of the said representation has been marked annexure "d" to the writ petition. On 7th January, 1993, the petitioner was served with a notice restraining him from selling bricks and further restraining him from using the stock of earth measuring 49782 eft. This letter has been marked annexure "e". According to the petitioner the claim of royalty as demanded by the letter marked Annexure "c" is absolutely frivolous and the authority concerned is not entitled to claim royalty as per demand. According to the petitioner the claim of the respondent authority on account of royalty is based on fictitious rate not approved by the government and the respondent authority is not entitled to issue any notice as in the case of Annexure and that the said notice is liable to be quashed.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the notice dated 7th january, 1993 marked "e" to the writ application and the purported claim by virtue of the notice dated 17th July, 1992 marked "c" the petitioner has come before this Court for forbidding the respdt.- authority from giving effect to the letters marked Annexure "c" and Annexure "e" and for quashing and/or setting aside the said letters and for allowing the petitioner to manufacture bricks and to run his business and for a writ of certiorari commanding the respondent to transmit the entire records relating to the present proceeding to this court and other reliefs.