He also held the appellant before us responsible for the loss caused to the respondent, hence, while allowing the petition imposed a companyt of Rs.5,000/ payable by the appellant.
The respondent preferred a revision petition against the said order which was allowed in favour of the respondent directing the release of the goods.
The learned Single Judge who heard the said writ petition, issued an interim direction on 11.10.1996 directing release of the goods.
Pursuant to the said direction of the learned Single Judge, the goods were released on 18.10.1996 but the learned Single Judge during the final disposal of the writ petition, took a serious view of the matter and came to the companyclusion that the proceedings against the respondent were initiated without following the process of law.
But according to the respondent, despite the said order in revision, the goods in question were number released, therefore, the respondent was companypelled to file a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench.
He further directed the State Government to initiate proceedings according to law, against the appellant herein for his biased act.
On the ground that there was an evasion of companymercial tax, he made an attachment order of certain perishable goods belonging to the respondent firm companysequent to which the property worth about Rs.2.92 lakhs belonging to the respondent was attached and kept in Central Warehousing Corporation, Sheopurkalan.
J U D G M E N T Arising out of SLP No.4794 of 2002 SANTOSH HEGDE, J. Heard learned companynsel.
Being aggrieved by the said directions of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the said High Court.
It is against this order of the High Court that the appellant is in appeal before us.
Leave granted The appellant in this appeal was at the relevant point of time a member of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service posted as a Commercial Tax Officer.
