Naveen Chandra Upadhyay vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's application, filed on 30.07.2024, had been pending for over six months. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the inaction of respondent No. 3. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to respondent No. 3, the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palik Parishad, Nainpur, District Mandla. This direction mandates that the said authority must consider and decide the petitioner's pending application within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Court's order. The Court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case. The operative direction is the consideration and decision of the application within the stipulated timeframe.
Facts
The petitioner, Naveen Chandra Upadhyay, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. He was aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No. 3, the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palik Parishad, Nainpur, District Mandla. The petitioner had submitted an application on 29.07.2024 (later clarified as 30.07.2024 in paragraph 4) requesting the return of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) and 12% GST, following the completion of a contract. This application had been pending for over six months without consideration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palik Parishad, Nainpur, District Mandla has failed to consider the petitioner's application dated 29.07.2024 (filed on 30.07.2024) seeking the return of an FDR and 12% GST, thereby violating the petitioner's right to have his application considered. Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that he had completed his contract and was entitled to the return of his FDR and 12% GST. He contended that his application for this purpose, filed on 30.07.2024, had remained unconsidered for more than six months, necessitating judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Contentions of the Revenue/State: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents/State.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by inaction of respondent No.3- Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palik Parishad, Nainpur, District Mandla in not considering his pending application dated 29.07.2024 contained in Annexure P/5. 2. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that contract has been completed by petitioner and prayer is made for return of FDR and 12% GST. Said application has not been considered.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
Application was filed on 30.07.2024. Same is pending for last more than six months.
In view of same, writ petition is disposed off directing respondent No.3 Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palik Parishad, Nainpur, District Mandla to consider and decide petitioner's pending application within a period of
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.