9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnagar, wherein incriminatory materials were found, which have been referred in the order. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no material to initiate the proceedings. It is the settled principle of law that in the writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, this court cannot examine the sufficiency of the material. Appeal dismissed. - Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1629 (Tax) of 2002 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2010 - RAJES KUMAR AND BHARATI SAPRU, JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by RAJES KUMAR J. In the present writ petition the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice dated March 26, 2002 and orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... representative/employee. He read the notice but refused to take the notices. As per the order, the copies of the notices have been left at the premises. The contention of the petitioner is that the report given by the process server is incorrect. He submitted that Sri Suman Raj Agarwal was on leave from March 25, 2002 to March 30, 2002 on account of serious illness of his wife. He submitted that March 25, 2002 was holiday on account of Moharram. It is further submitted that there was no material to initiate the proceeding under section 21. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that it is not disputed in the petition that Sri Suman Raj Agarwal was the authorised representative and was the employee of the company. It is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiry dated March 18, 2002 made at the premises of Tomar Transport Co., Shamli Road, Muzaffarnagar, wherein incriminatory materials were found. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the writ petition, counter-affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and the various documents annexed. In the present writ petition the petitioner has only challenged the notice dated March 26, 2002, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, under section 21(1) and the orders dated March 30, 2002, passed by him. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner granting approval under the proviso to section 21(2) of the State Act is not under challenge. The main submission of the petitioner is that the jurisdictional notices under section 21(1) hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employee shall submit a report to the concerned authority stating facts about such refusal and the name and address of the person, if any, present at the time of such refusal. Such report shall be verified on oath by the process server, peon or employee. The concerned authority may, having regard to the facts and circumstances and after making such further enquiry in the matter, if any, as it thinks fit, consider such refusal to be proof of service. We are of the view that there was substantial compliance of rule 77(1)(a) and rule 77(3) of the Rules and, therefore, there was proper service of the notices under section 21(1) on the petitioner in accordance with rule 77. From the perusal of the record it appears that the proceedings unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
