Full Text
W.P.(C) 13055/2022
AMBIKA PILLAI DESIGNER SALON ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Saurabh Jain, Adv.
ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Jatin Gaur, Adv. for Mr Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel.
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM Appl.39541/2022
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 13055/2022& CM APPL. No. 39540/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr Jatin Gaur accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/Revenue.
4. In view of the order that we intend to pass, counsel for the respondents/Revenue says that he does not wish to file a reply in the matter.
5. We may note that this is the second round of litigation for the petitioner.
5.1. In the earlier round, the writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 7169/2022] 2022:DHC:3725-DB instituted by the petitioner was disposed of, by this Court, via order dated 11.05.2022.
5.2. The relevant part of the order is captured herein:
4.[1] Mr Ajay Mankotia, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says the petitioner could not deposit within the prescribed timeframe the "amount declared" under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [in short "the Scheme"], as it did not have the requisite financial wherewithal.
4.2. It is also Mr Mankotia's contention that the petitioner is suffering from cancer and, therefore, a lenient view of the aforesaid infraction should be taken.
4.3. In support of his submission, Mr Mankotia points out that the petitioner had entered into correspondence with respondent/revenue immediately, after the deadline for depositing the "amount declared" expired on 30.06.2020.
4.4. For this purpose, our attention has been drawn to the communications addressed by the petitioners to the respondents/revenue i.e., communications dated 16.07.2020, 09.11.2020, 20.03.2021, 07.12.2021, 13.01.2022 and 23.03.2022 [See Annexures P-7 to P-10, P-13 and P-16.]
5. According to us, ordinarily no direction can be issued by the Court for extending the timeframe provided under the Scheme as this would be the prerogative of the respondents having regard to the ground realities.
5.1. However, given the circumstances that have been put forth by Mr Mankotia on behalf of the petitioner, in particular, the fact that the petitioner claims that she is afflicted with cancer, the designated committee or any other appropriate authority [hereafter referred to as concerned authority"] will treat the writ petition as a representation and dispose of the same.
5.2. In case any leeway has been given in any other case(s) for extension of the time limit provided in the Scheme, the concerned authority will examine, as to whether the petitioner's case is at par, and the same treatment can be accorded to her as well.
6. The aforesaid exercise will be concluded, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”
6. The record shows that on 09.06.2022, the petitioner wrote to the respondents/Revenue, in the backdrop of what was noted by the coordinate bench in the order dated 11.05.2022.
6.1. In this communication, reference was made by the petitioner to certain observations made by the Madras High Court in N. Sundararajan (Former Partner), M/S. Genupro Yarn Agencies vs. Union of India and Ors, 2021 (7) TMI 385,as well as in Malabar Erectors vs. Union of India and Ors, 2021 (7) TMI 257.
6.2. Besides this, reference was made to observations made bythe Gujarat High Court in Messrs Falcon Fighter Force Services Pvt. Limited vs. Union of India, 2021 (1) TMI 23.
6.3. In response to the aforementioned communication, the respondents/revenue wrote back to the petitioner on 13.06.2022.
6.4. A perusal of the response of the respondents/Revenue shows that they have not dealt with the question, as to whether any leeway was granted to any other person, concerning the extension of the deadline provided in the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
7. The record shows that the petitioner had requested the designated authority for an extension of 1 month for the deposit of the subject amount, viathe letter dated 16.07.2020.
7.1. It is the petitioner’s case that due to Covid-19, the initial deadline, which was fixed as 30.06.2020, was extended to 30.09.2020.
8. As was noted by the Court in its earlier order dated 11.05.2022, passed in the aforementioned writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No. 7169/2022, the petitioner is a cancer patient.
9. The respondents/Revenue are expected to deal with the petitioner’s representation, having regard to what has been observed by the coordinate bench on 11.05.2022. Since the same has not been done thus far, the writ petition is disposed of, once again, with a direction to the respondents/Revenue to pass an order, which would deal with the issue highlighted hereinabove, and in the order dated 11.05.2022.
10. Accordingly, the respondents/revenue will take the necessary steps and pass a fresh order, within the next six weeks.
11. Resultantly, the pending application shall stand closed.
(RAJIV SHAKDHER) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE SEPTEMBER 9, 2022