MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the notice Ex. 2 dated 29-6-79 u/s 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. 1973. The petitioner's case is that proceedings under the old ceiling law could be reopened by issuance of notice upto 30-6-79. It was issued on 4-7-79. Although the notice itself bears the date 2.)-6-79; BY this notice Ex. 2, the petitioner was required to appear on 28-9-79: The contention of the petitioner is that mere signing of the notice is not sufficient. Actual issuance of notice is necessary .upto the date specified in Sec. !5(2) of the Act and the specified date is 30-6-79 for issuance of notice. The petitioner clearly averred the fact of the date of issue of notice as 4-7-79. There appears an endorsement to that effect on the notice itself.

(2.) DESPITE notice no counter to the writ petition has been filed; There is no reason to disbelieve the fact averred by the petitioner in this regard and we take it that the notice was actually issued oh 4-7-79 though it was prepared and signed on 29-6-79. Second proviso to sub-section (2) of S .15 reads as under: - "Provided further that no notice referred to in the foregoing proviso" shall be issued after the expiry of seven years front the date of the final. order sought to be reopened or after the expiry of 30th day of June, 1979, whichever is later." The words used are that no notice shall be issued after the expiry of 30th day of June, 1979. The meaning of the word "issued" is "the actionon of going, passing or flowing out." Simply signing of the notice would not amount to* issue of notice. There should be actual despatch of the notice. The' notice must actually go out or pass out or flow out from the office. According to the petitioner, this has not been done upto 30-6-79; and it was issued actually on 4-7-79. Thus the notice could not be issued by the authority after 30-6-79 as such, no proceedings' in pursuance of such a notice can be initiated. The' notice Ex. 2, therefore, is. not a valid notice under which proceedings u/s 15 (2) can be reopened. This" writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed