Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11.05.2022
AMBIKA PILLAI DESIGNER SALON ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Ajay Mankotia and Mr Avijit Singh, Advs.
ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Rajesh Gogna, CGSC for R-1 Mr Harpreet Singh with Ms Suhani
Mathur, Adv. for R-2 to 4
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA [Physical court hearing/ hybrid hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C.) 7169/2022
2. Issue notice.
2.1. Mr Rajesh Gogna accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1 while Mr Harpreet Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.[2] to 4.
3. In view of the directions that we intend to pass, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
4. The substantive prayers made in the writ petition read as follows: “a) Appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of Indian setting aside/ quashing the Recovery notices dated 04.01.2022 issued by Respondent no.3 and 25.01.2022 issued by Respondent No.2 respectively; 2022:DHC:1874-DB b) Appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent No.1 to allow the Petitioner to make the payment of Rs. 68,53,590 (Sixty-Eight Lacs Fifty-Three Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Only) as determined by form no.
SVLDRD -3 dated 06.03.2020 issued u/s 127 of the Finance (NO. 2) Act, 2019 read with Rule 6 of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme -2019” 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.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J POONAM A. BAMBA, J MAY 11, 2022 Click here to check corrigendum, if any