LexM/S. UPADHYAY AND CO. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c MIS. UPADHYA Y AND CO. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. DECEMBER I, 1998 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K.T. THOMAS, JI.] Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 136, 226 and 265. Code of Civil Procedure. 1908: Order 23 Rule 1 (4) - Order 47 Rule (1). Special Leave Petition-Withdrawal of-Filing of-Fresh matters against same impugned order-Permissibility of . ,;.•..,.:..- ."' .~-R.eview-High Court Order-No error apparent on the face of record-- Attempt to get the order reviewed by a clarification petition-Rejection by D High Court....,-Held right. Tax matters-Interference with by courts-Interim orders staying recovery of public revenue-Circumspection. Toll ·tax-Petitioner allowed to collect for one year-His bid not E accepted for succeeding three years-Writ-Interim order by High Court permitting petitioner to continue to collect toll charges-Notification by Government enhancing toll charges-Another writ filed by petitioner-High Court allowed the petitioner to charge toll fees on revised rates but restrained the respondents from enhancing bid money-Supreme Court set aside this F order and permitted the State to take effective steps for recovery from petitioner-In a new writ petition filed by petitioner High Court directed status quo with respect to collection of fees-However this order was subsequently vacated by High Court-When the said development was brought to notice of this Court it directed the Government to take appropriate steps for recovery of money due from the petitioner-Petitioner sought withdrawal G of original writ petition filed before High Court-The High Court instead passed an order dated 3.5.1996 directing the Commissioner Allahabad to recalculate the money to be refunded by petitioner-Consequential order by Commissioner directing the petitioner to refund amount with 15% interest- New petition filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of order passed H by Commissioner-Direction by High Court to petitioner to pay 50% amount- 234 ... - --- - UPADHY A Y AND CO. v. STA TE 235 In the meanwhile petitioner challenged the order dated 3.5.1996 before this 'A Court but later withdrew the special leave petition-Thereafter he filed an application before High Court seeking clarification of order dated 3.5.1996- High Court order dated 10.9.1997 dismissing the application-Special Leave Petitions filed against orders dated 3.5.1996 and 10.9.1997-Held it is not a permissible prcctice to challenge the same order over again after withdrawing the Special Leave Petition without obtaining permission of the B court-This principle has been incorporated as a rule .in the realm of suits under Order 23 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure-The aforesaid ban for filing a fresh suit is based on public policy-This rule of public policy also applies to special leave petitions-No interference was called for with two impugned orders. C Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior., [1987) 1 SCC 5, relied ol). CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19359-60 of 1998. D From the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.97 and 3.5.96 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.A. No. 61704/96 in W.P.No. 32974/91 and 22439 of 1992. R.K. Jain and Vijay Bahuguna, S.P. Pandey, Shamama Anis, Shakil Bahuguna and Anis Suhrawardy for the Petitioner. E The following Order of the Court was delivered : Delay condoned. Shashtri Bridge at Allahabad runs across river Ganga. Motor vehicles plying on National Highway No. 2 and passing through the said bridge have F to pay toll charges. The bridge is named after Lal Bhadur Shashtri, fonner Prime Minister oflndia who is well remembered for his honesty and simplicity. River Ganga is adored in India with reverence in the belief that her holy water cleanses the believers of their sins. Ironically, that bridge built across that river was used by the petitioner as a means to amass wealth dishonestly. G Unfortunately, such unwholesome conduct was facilitated on account of certain orders paased by the Allahabad High Court. Petitioner, who flourished in the aforesaid wealth having been insulated with the court orders against any outside interference for a long time, could not continue preening in such opulence as he was caught in the meanwhile. He is now being asked to return the ill-gotten wealth. Strategy of subterfuge played by him even thereafter did H 236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A not work
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.