In the light of the categorical submission on behalf of the respondents that no coercive action has been taken against the collective for the default in payment on the part of a few, the division bench of Meghalaya High Court held that nothing remains of the petition and accordingly disposed it.
While considering the petition, Meghalaya High Court observed that since the scheme of the relevant provisions requires a previous notice and seven days’ time to be afforded to the assessee to respond thereto and it appears that such procedure may not have been followed in this case.
Meghalaya High Court division bench held that there is no doubt that the city looks cleaner, though rubble and rubbish, particularly construction material, seem to be dumped in a haphazard manner.
Meghalaya High Court observed that since it is for the State to take appropriate action against the builder and the matter pertains to apparently faulty construction or design, the Court does not deemed it proper to rush into the case immediately.
Counsel for the petitioner who has submitted before the Meghalaya High Court that a petition under Article 226 has been preferred before this Court against the conviction order passed by the General Assam Rifles Court, wherein the petitioner was sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment.