Commissioner of Income Tax, vs M/s. G.V.V.Prasad AND others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 236 / 2007 Dr.Bhagwan Das Kiraroo ----Appellant Versus State ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 237 / 2007 Laxmi Narain Khatri ----Appellant Versus State ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.C. Goyal, with Ms Sukriti Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.M. Saxena, AAG Mr. S.L. Songara _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Order 11/05/2017 1. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge hence they are decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petitions.

(2 of 3) [SAW-236/2007]

Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Supreme Court which has been relied upon. 4. He has relied upon following the decision. 1. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation And Another V/s Mohd. Ismail and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 239. 2. Ravinder Nath V/s State of Rajasthan and Others 1992(3) WLC (Raj.) 153. 3. Hirday Narain V/s Income-Tax Officer, AIR 1971 SC 33 4. B. N. Kirpal, A.P. Misra And Ruma Pal JJ. (2000) 7 SCC 425 5. Ramanathan V/s Union of India and Others (2001) 2 SCC 118.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. In our considered opinion this court on 27th April, 2007 passed the following order:- “We find no justification to continue the interim order. In case the appellant ultimately succeeds in the appeal, obviously he will get all consequential benefits that he would be entitled to.” 7. Even when the petition was filed, the appellant was 60 years of age. It is a policy matter of Government to grant extension in question of additional benefits according to their law needs of the subject at the relevant time. If the Government has made the policy not to extend, in our considered opinion, the appellant- petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right. 8. We are in complete agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeals stand dismissed.

(3 of 3) [SAW-236/2007]

A copy of this judgment be placed in connected file.

(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. B. M. Gandhi/7-8

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. G.V.V.Prasad AND others