NITYANAND KARAN Vs. BHAGALPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in this Civil Revision is that while admitting his appeal under Section 152 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the learned District Judge has been pleased to reject his prayer of stay made through a separate application by the impugned order without assigning any reason.

(2.) Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order being a non -speaking order is vitiated as some reason should have been aassigned while rejecting the prayer of petitioner to stay the realisation of taxes and that in view of the fact that the construction of Hotel in question was not complete and the order of enhancement of tax was made without giving any adequate opportunity of hearing, the entire action of the Municipal authority was void and, thus stay should be granted by me.

(3.) Mr. Sri Nandan Singh, learned Counsel for the Corporation argues that in view of Section 152(6) of the Act, the learned District Judges lacked jurisdiction to stay further proceeding and that since there is no question of "any irreparable injury to the petitioner in view of the fact that in the event of success, he would be entitled to refund of taxes from the Chief Executive Officer; and that adquate opportunity was given to the petitioner to have his say in the matter, but he himself refused to accept notice of hearing (vide Annexure -C), thus no stay should be granted by me.