Case Note & Summary
The present writ appeals were filed by Sree Maruthi Agrotech Limited and its director K. Gurumoorthy against the Salt Commissioner and Deputy Salt Commissioner, challenging the order of a learned single Judge dated 21.11.2022. The single Judge had confirmed demand notices raised by the respondents regarding payment of assignment fee and ground rent in respect of Government of India land. The appellants contended that the guidelines were modified unilaterally by the second respondent (Deputy Salt Commissioner) proposing to charge the assignment fee at the highest rate for transfer of a leasehold right, and that the first respondent (Salt Commissioner) had not approved such modification. However, the learned single Judge found that the Government had passed an order on 27.01.2004, and the respondents raised the demand based on that government order, which was still in force. Since the appellants had not challenged the government order, challenging the consequential demand was not maintainable. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan, delivered a common judgment dismissing the writ appeals. The court held that the government order dated 27.01.2004 was not challenged by the appellants, and therefore, the demand notices based on that order could not be assailed. The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Government Orders - Binding Effect - Government Order dated 27.01.2004 - The appellants challenged demand notices for assignment fee and ground rent, arguing that the guidelines were modified unilaterally by the Deputy Salt Commissioner without approval. The court held that the government order of 27.01.2004 was still in force and not challenged, thus the consequential demand based on it was valid. (Paras 2-3) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Collateral Challenge - The court held that since the appellants did not challenge the government order dated 27.01.2004, they cannot challenge the demand notices that are based on that order. The writ appeals were dismissed. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the demand for assignment fee and ground rent based on a government order dated 27.01.2004 is valid when the guidelines were allegedly modified unilaterally by the Deputy Salt Commissioner without approval of the Salt Commissioner.
Final Decision
The writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Government order not challenged cannot be collaterally attacked
- demand based on valid government order is maintainable
- unilateral modification of guidelines by subordinate authority without approval is invalid
