9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same in accordance with the law. It may also be noted that the powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India are discretionary. In the instant case, when there is an appropriate forum to grant relief, it is not necessary for this court to interfere. - - - - - Dated:- 11-3-2004 - Judge(s) : B. C. PATEL., BADAR DURREZ AHMED. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by B.C. PATEL C.J. - Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) has approached this court by this writ petition, inter alia, requesting the court to issue a writ of certiorari, writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing the notice of atta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its meeting held on March 8, 2004, and in para. 4 of the minutes of the said meeting, the committee held as under: "4. The committee after hearing the parties, held the view that since the appeal of MTNL is still pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), a quasi-judicial authority, and no order has been passed by it till date, the committee was not in a position at this stage to consider any prayer for grant of clearance to MTNL for pursuing a writ petition before the hon'ble High Court for seeking stay of demand." Thus, it is clear that the committee rejected the clearance to MTNL for pursuing a writ petition before the High Court for seeking stay of the demand. In the case of ONGC [1994] Supp 4 SCC 541, the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been specifically rejected and, therefore, the petition is not required to be entertained. The appellant has again approached the COD on March 9, 2004, inter alia, praying that MTNL may be allowed to pursue the writ petition before the High Court which is being filed "today", i.e., "March 9, 2004". As the COD had earlier rejected the application, and the MTNL wanted to approach this court, in the aforesaid application dated March 9, 2004, a prayer was made to permit the MTNL to prosecute the writ petition. Be that as it may, in view of the absence of clearance and the clear dicta of the Supreme Court, it is not possible for this court to entertain the writ petition. Learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that earlier on February 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
