TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. We are not prepared to accept that such clients, if aggrieved by any orders made by the Appellate Authorities or the Tribunals are not in a position to seek redressal for themselves. Accordingly, there is no case made out to relax the rule of locus standi and entertain this petition as a public interest litigation. The deletion of Section 29(5), cannot be challenged simply on the ground that the provisions prior to deletion were better. However, we do not wish to delve any further on this issue lest, we might be preempting challenges from a proper relator. This petition cannot be entertained as public interest litigation - petition dismissed. - PIL WRIT PETITION NO. 35 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2019 - M. S. SONAK NUTAN D. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esar to Caeser. c) Mr. Kale submits that in terms of Section 14 of the said Act, the State is enjoined to constitute Tribunal to entertain and decide second appeals under the said Act. This contemplates that Tribunals are manned by members who have expertise in fiscal matters like those dealt with under the said Act. He submits that instead, the State has vested powers of such Tribunals in the existing Administrative Tribunal which according to him does not have the necessary expertise. d) Mr. Kale further submits that some proceedings have been initiated against some officials of the Commercial Taxes Department before the Lokayukta. He submits that the State has provided advocates for such officers and this is not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontentions we are of the opinion that most of the issues raised by the petitioner cannot be considered in a public interest litigation which he has purported to institute. 7. The petitioner is a practicing Chartered Accountant who represents the cause of the dealers and other assessees under the said Act. According to us, such dealers and assessees under the said Act are not poor or ignorant persons who are unable to espouse their own cause. In this case, the petitioner has given certain instances relating to his own clients. We are not prepared to accept that such clients, if aggrieved by any orders made by the Appellate Authorities or the Tribunals are not in a position to seek redressal for themselves. Accordingly, there is no c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, Second Appellate Authorities. However, Section 14(10) of the said Act clearly provides that : Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, confer on any Tribunal constituted or functioning under any other law for the time being in force, the powers conferred on a Tribunal by or under this Act and thereupon such other Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Tribunal constituted under this section in relation to the said law notwithstanding anything inconsistent in such other law. 12. There is no dispute that the State Government in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 14(10) has constituted the existing Administrative Tribunal as the Tribunal for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly aggrieved, are not in a position to take up their own cause. Therefore, there is no case made out to entertain the public interest litigation on this ground as well. 16. Finally, the petitioner, relying upon a paper-cutting placed at Annexure P-11 page 106 of the paper-book complains that orders of Lokayukta are not being implemented by the State Government. Based upon such news reports we are not prepared to entertain the present petition. If there is some concrete case and any of the parties have any grievances, then no doubt the matter can always be considered. However, on basis of general reports that orders of Lokayukta are not being implemented, it is not possible to entertain such public interest litigation. 17. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
