9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 746 - HC - GSTSeeking a direction to the respondent to supply copies of summons issued, arrest memo with regard to the husband of the petitioner and panchnama drawn during search at office premises - HELD THAT - The instant petition has been preferred by the wife of the accused, Ankur Garg. Learned counsel has not been able to tender any explanation as to why husband of the petitioner has not come forward for the redressal of his grievance. The petitioner, being spouse of the accused, cannot be said to have any locus standi, while approaching this Court by way of the instant petition. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
- Petition seeking copies of summons, arrest memo, and panchnama under CGST Act, 2017 - Locus standi of the petitioner as the spouse of the accused Analysis: The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, requesting the respondent to provide copies of summons issued, arrest memo, and panchnama related to a specific incident. The petitioner, the wife of the accused individual, sought relief through this petition. However, the court noted that the petitioner's husband, the accused, did not approach the court for redressal of his grievance. The court emphasized that the petitioner, as the spouse of the accused, lacks locus standi to file the petition on his behalf. The court, therefore, declined to entertain the petition based on this ground. The judges, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Puri, considered the lack of standing of the petitioner in the case due to her relationship with the accused. The court's decision to dismiss the petition was primarily based on the principle that the spouse of the accused does not have the legal standing to pursue such matters on behalf of the accused. Consequently, the prayer made in the petition was not accepted by the court, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. In light of the dismissal of the writ petition, the court ordered the segregation of the case file that was tagged along with the present case. This administrative action was taken as a procedural consequence of the dismissal of the main petition. The judgment, delivered orally by Justice Jitendra Chauhan, concluded with the dismissal of the petition and the consequential administrative direction to segregate the related case file.
|
