SUSHIL HARKAULI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.-, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent No. 4 has filed a counter-affidavit today, which is taken on record. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and the Standing Counsel.

( 2 ) IT is alleged by the respondents that certain movable property of the assessee (respondent No. 4), which had been attached, was given in the supurdagi of the father of the petitioners. It is also alleged by the respondents that the said father died without handing back the possession of the goods of which supurdagi had been given to him. The assessee (respondent No. 4) whose property was attached towards recovery of arrears of the trade tax had filed an appeal which was allowed and the demand was set aside. Accordingly, the assessee (respondent No. 4) sued the State Government for recovery of the attached property or its value. The suit has been decreed for certain amount of money against the State Government. In the suit, the supurdgar or the legal representatives of the supurdgar were not parties. Apparently, the decree has been or is likely to be executed against the State Government, because of which the State Governmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document