Palamau Zila Vyawasai Sangh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant......the counter-affidavit during the pendency of the writ petition without assigning any reason whatsoever.3. though several grounds have been raised in order to challenge the impugned order as annexed in annexure-c but it is not necessary to deal with all those points raised, in view of the order which i am going to pass. from the impugned order annexure-c, i find that no reason has been assigned for rejecting the plea raised by the writ petitioner. the order even does not show that the members of the petitioner association were either personally or their representatives were heard ever. the impugned order even does not bear the signature of all the members of the committee.4. in this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the claim of the either of the parties, the impugned order dated 26.2.2003 as contained in annexure-c to the counter-affidavit is hereby set aside.5. the matter is remitted back to the committee constituted under section 117 of the bihar municipal act to consider the grievance of the petitioners raised in the review petitions and to pass a fresh reasoned order after hearing the concerned parties within a period of three months from the date of.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. Heard the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

2. The grievance of the members of the writ petitioner is that though they have filed review petitions before the Committee constituted under Section 117 of the Bihar Municipal Act for reviewing the enhancement of the Municipal/Holding Tax but without giving opportunity of hearing to them, some of the review petitions were rejected by order dated 26.2.2003 as contained in Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit during the pendency of the writ petition without assigning any reason whatsoever.

3. Though several grounds have been raised in order to challenge the impugned order as annexed in Annexure-C but it is not necessary to deal with all those points raised, in view of the order which I am going to pass. From the impugned order Annexure-C, I find that no reason has been assigned for rejecting the plea raised by the writ petitioner. The order even does not show that the members of the petitioner association were either personally or their representatives were heard ever. The impugned order even does not bear the signature of all the members of the Committee.

4. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the claim of the either of the parties, the impugned order dated 26.2.2003 as contained in Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit is hereby set aside.

5. The matter is remitted back to the Committee constituted under Section 117 of the Bihar Municipal Act to consider the grievance of the petitioners raised in the review petitions and to pass a fresh reasoned order after hearing the concerned parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.