AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.C. Jain, J.—By this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the notice Ex. 2 dated 29-6-79 u/s 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. The petitioner''s case is that proceedings under the old ceiling law could be reopened by issuance of notice up to 30-6-79, in the present case, according to the petitioner, notice was not issued up to 30-6-79. It was issued on 4-7-79. Although the notice itself bears the date 29-6-79. By this notice Ex. 2, the petitioner was required to appear on 28-9-79. The contention of the petitioner is that mere signing of the notice is not sufficient. Actual issuance of notice is necessary up to the date specified in Section 15(2) of the Act and the specified date is 30-6-79 for issuance of notice. The petitioner clearly averred the fact of the date of issue of notice as 4-7-79. There appears an endorsement to that effect on the notice itself.
Despite notice, no counter to the writ petition has been filed. There is no reason to disbelieve the fact averred by the petitioner is this regard and we take it that the notice was actually issued on 4-7-79 though it was prepared and signed on 29-6-79. Second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 15 reads as under:--
"Provided further that no notice referred to in the foregoing proviso shall be issued after the expiry of seven years from the date of the final order sought to be re-opened or after the expiry of 30th day of June, 1979 whichever is later."
The words used are that no notice shall be issued after the expiry of 30th day of June, 1979. The meaning of the word "issued" is "the action of going, passing, or flowing out." Simply signing of the notice would not amount to issue of notice. There should be actual despatch of the notice. The notice must actually go out or pass out or flow out from the office.
According to the petitioner, this has not been done by the authority up to 30-6-79; and it was issued actually on 4-7-79. Thus the notice could not be issued as such, no proceedings in pursuance after 30-6-79 of such a notice can be initiated. The notice Ex. 2, therefore, is not a valid notice under which proceedings u/s 15(2) can be reopened. This writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed it is declared that notice Ex. 2 is not valid and in pursuance of this notice, proceedings u/s 15(2) cannot be re-opened.