Bench:
Sunil Thomas, J.
Issue:
Was there criminal intimidation to take property?
Facts:
- Petitioner filed a complaint that the respondent had tried to remove the lateral support of his property.
- Petitioner went forward against the respondent as a defaulter of Abkari dues.
- Petitioner though, has not produced any proof of his allegation.
- Allegations were also made against the Director of a Medical College and priests.
- On this application, orders were requested from the Commissioner of Excise.
- There was clarification required on the amount payable by the petitioner.
Appellant’s contentions:
- Petitioner said that he had been criminally intimidated by the opposite party.
- Petitioner seeks consideration of complaint.
- He does not seek any relief against the property, but only wants the benefit of Amnesty scheme 2008.
- He alleges that a local committee of a political party supports his view.
- He raised many contentions against the liability brought to him by writ petitions and appeals and also special leave petitions.
- Petitioner stated that he had made two remittances of Rs 4,50,000 and Rs 3,00,000/- each as ordered in the interim directions.
Respondent contentions:
- Respondent contended that he did not intimidate the opposite party of his property.
- The 2nd respondent considered the claim and issued ex parte order.
Final judgement:
- Petition dismissed due to lack of evidence by petitioner.
- Petitioner, being the one who had defaulted, has in fact, made his application during the period of limitation and the petitioner is entitled to benefit from the Amnesty scheme.
- Thus, in view of that, the second respondent should pass the orders on the appellant’s application for his benefit.
- The petitioner would pay Rs 4,50,000/- &Rs 3,00,000/- each when his application is granted.
- Also the payment should be adjusted and if any excess amount taken by respondent, should be returned.
