# Siti Networks Limited v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 436 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-12-20 - **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 1312 of 2019 - **Bench:** Biswanath Somadder, Ajay Bhanot - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/siti-networks-limited-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45075 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Order-issuance of summoning order in not merely a formality-it initiates criminal proceedings against a person - Courts need to examine and apply mind to the facts of the case and testify the incidents of the complainants as well as accused before issuing summoning order. The applicants are teachers and Security Officer of the College. The College has assigned administrative posts to them and they have no criminal antecedents. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had issued summoning order without considering the facts, application of mind and even without testing the incidents of complainants as well as accused. The Chief Judicial Magistrate should consider each and every facts about the complainant as well as accused before issuance of summoning order and record reasons for the same. The continuance of criminal proceeding would be hazardous as no teachers of College would come forward to hold Administrative post for smooth and peaceful functioning of Educational Institution. (Para 17) Application u/s 482 allowed. (E-10) ## Text 436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES opinion, hence reassessment is not permissible in view of aforesaid exposition of law." 48. This Hon'ble Court, time and again has taken the view that in absence of no new material brought on record, the completed assessment cannot be re-opened merely on the basis of change of opinion. 49. In addition to above as discussed above, there is no new material on record to be put forward by the respondents that the goods in question i.e. Harpic and Mortein Coil will be classifiable under Schedule-V of UP VAT Act so as to justify the higher rate of tax, at the rate of 12 %. On the contrary keeping in mind of the principles laid down by Supreme Court, the other High Courts as well as this Court, the goods in question i.e. Harpic and Mortein are squarely covered under Entry 20, Part-A of Schedule-II of UPVAT Act. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 24.11.2017 is hereby quashed. 50. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. ---------- (2020)1ILR 436 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. Writ Tax No. 1312 of 2019 Siti Networks Limited ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Pratik J. Nagar, Sri Ritiwika Nanda Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., A.S.G.I. A. Constitution of India - Arts. 226 and 227 - if one approaches the writ Court, which is essentially a high prerogative discretionary jurisdiction bestowed by the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court and the High Courts - equity has to be held not only with clean hands but with fairness, transparency and with full disclosure of material facts. (Para 3) Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn. (E4) (Delivered by Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder, J. & Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.) 1. Yesterday, we had directed the Registry to produce the records relating to Writ-C No. 10025 of 2018, before us today. 2. Perusing the records of that matter and going through the instant writ petition, we find that the issues raised in both the matters are quite similar to each other. However, what is distressing to note is the fact that in the present writ petition, i.e. Writ Tax No. 1312 of 2019, the writ petitioner is totally silent with regard to the fact of filing of the earlier writ petition, being Writ-C No. 10025 of 2018. 3. If one approaches the writ Court ? which is essentially a high prerogative discretionary jurisdiction bestowed by the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court and the High Courts ? equity has to be held not only with clean hands but with fairness, transparency and with full disclosure of material facts. In the facts of the instant case, not even a whisper of the earlier writ petition finds its place in any 1 All. Siti Networks Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 437 of the averments made in the instant writ petition by Siti Networks Limited, being the writ petitioner in both the matters. 4. We not only deprecate the manner in which the writ petitioner has taken the writ Court for granted, we must hasten to emphatically state that this approach is nothing sort of a gross abuse of process of Court. 5. In such circumstances as stated above, the writ petition is liable to be summarily dismissed and stands accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 50,000/-, which shall be deposited by the writ petitioner with the State Legal Services Authority of Uttar Pradesh within four weeks from date. 6. List this matter four weeks hence only for the purpose of ascertaining compliance of the above direction. 7. At this stage, the learned advocate for the writ petitioner seeks leave of Court to withdraw the writ petition. Although withdrawal of a writ petition is not a matter of right, especially under such circumstances as stated above, nevertheless, taking a lenient view, we allow the writ petition to be dismissed as withdrawn . ---------- (2020)1ILR 437 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. Application U/S 482 Cr. P.C. No. 992 of 2006 Dr. Satyamvada Singh & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar, Sri Sudhir Solanki, Sri Umesh Dwivedi Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. A. Summoning Order-issuance of summoning order in not merely a formality-it initiates criminal proceedings against a person - Courts need to examine and apply mind to the facts of the case and testify the incidents of the complainants as well as accused before issuing summoning order. The applicants are teachers and Security Officer of the College. The College has assigned administrative posts to them and they have no criminal antecedents. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had issued summoning order without considering the facts, application of mind and even without testing the incidents of complainants as well as accused. The Chief Judicial Magistrate should consider each and every facts about the complainant as well as accused before issuance of summoning order and record reasons for the same. The continuance of criminal proceeding would be hazardous as no teachers of College would come forward to hold Administrative post for smooth and peaceful functioning of Educational Institution. (Para 17) Application u/s 482 allowed. (E-10) (Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. appearing for opposite party no. 1. 2. Notice was issued to opposite party no. 2 but neither any one appeared on his behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed. 3. Brief facts of the case is that applicant no. 1 is Lecturer in C.M.P.