AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Chairman Notified Area Committee Batote on October 5, 1984 issued a notice to the appellant herein under sec. 101 of the Municipal Act for payment of dues in regard to Dharat contract allotted to him for the period 1983 -84. It appears that appellant did not deposit the amount in pursuance of that notice and thereafter chairman of said Committee issued declaration on June 26.1985 regarding due amount recoverable as arrears of land Revenue. The appellant challenged that order before the Minister for Local Self Government who dismissed the appeal on the ground that appellant has not deposited the demand amount in accordance with the Provision of sec. 103 of Municipal Act, Appellant then moved this court by filing writ petition No. 758 of 1985 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on February 4, 1991. Aggrieved by that judgment appellant has come up in Letters Patent Appeal before this Bench,

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it appears from the judgment of learned single judge that the only point pressed before him was in regard to the illegality committed by the Minister in dismissing the appeal without hearing the appellant - Mr. Singh learned counsel appearing for the appellant wanted to raise certain other pleas which we fear he cannot do at this stage as he only limited his argument which comes out from the judgment of learned single judge to the legal point as pointed out above. We, therefore permitted Mr. Singh to confine himself only to the said legal point.

(3.) IT is not the case of the appellant that he had deposited the amount and it appears from the record that he never deposited the amount and it appears from record that he never deposited the due amount either before the executive officer or before the, Minister at the time or filing of appeal nor at any time thereafter in accordance with the provisions of sec. 103 of municipal Act. Even the applicant did not deposit the amount as per the direction of the court at the time of admission of writ petition on August 22, 1985. Under sec. 103 (3) the requirement is that the amount claimed from the appellant should have been deposited by him or sufficient security furnished to the satisfaction of Executive Officer. This requirement had not been fulfilled either before filing appeal or afterwards. Learned Single Judge has also dealt in detail about it and we find no infirmity or illegality in the said judgment. We, therefore, see no merit in this appeal and as such it is dismissed. Interim direction shall stand vacated.