ANITA GUPTA Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, PATHANKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A colour of vindictiveness permeates through the impugned notice of the Municipal Committee, Pathankot (Annexure P-6) calling upon the petitioner to pay within five days, a sum of Rs. 81,900/- as octroi on a photostat machine of the value of approximately Rs. 1,27,000/-, failing which, it was said, it would be sold.

(2.) There is a background to the issuance of the impugned notice which unfortunately does not show either Shri I.D. Kanwar, I.A.S., Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur-respondent No. 3 or Shri Paramjit Singh Ghuman, Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, Pathankot-respondent No. 2 as possessing the approach or attitude which persons holding such posts are expected to have in their dealings with the public.

(3.) It will be recalled that the petitioner-Smt. Anita Gupta had been constrained to file an earlier writ petition 3945 of 1993, seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur to grant her permission to install a photostat machine in the Court compound of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot. Shri Om Parkash Gupta, the husband of the petitioner, has a khokha in the said Court compound where he has been working as a typist since 1973. On May 24, 1992 the petitioner, who is a Matriculate, applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, for permission to install a photostat machine in the khokha of her husband. This application was duly forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur with 'No Objection' of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, as contained in his letter of July 13, 1992. The permission sought was, however, declined by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, by his letter dated August 18, 1992. Thrice thereafter, the petitioner applied for similar permission, once with the recommendation of the Finance Minister, Punjab and on an other occasion with that of the Central Minister for Tourism, but to no avail. In the writ petition, a charge of favouritism had also been levelled by the petitioner against the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, on the ground that after rejecting her application, he had granted such permission to one Ravinder Singh by his order of December 1, 1992 and this Ravinder Singh had applied for such permission after it had been declined to her.