Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 27 CS SCJ 811/25
RAMESH Vs. THE MINISTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS AND PUBLIC GRIVANCES REPRESENTED
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
27.10.2025
Present: Sh. KMM Khan and Sh. Dilip Mishra, Ld counsel for the
plaintiff.
The present suit has been filed for seeking declaration of
the identity of the plaintiff and cancellation of the GST demand.
Briefly stated, it is alleged by the plaintiff that his identity
documents i.e. Aadhar card, PAN card etc. had been lost qua which he
had lodged complaint with the concerned police station. It is further
stated that the plaintiff is a victim of identity theft and by misusing the
said lost documents of the plaintiff, a firm namely M/s Kamakhya
Steels Pvt. Ltd. is doing business at Siwan, Bihar. It is alleged that
plaintiff has received a demand notice for the outstanding dues of GST
amount of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- for the year 2018 with respect to the firm
M/s Kamakhya Steels, however, plaintiff has no concern with the said
firm. It is further alleged that in view of the said identity theft, and
false outstanding amount raised against the plaintiff, bank accounts of
the plaintiff at Mandoli, Shalimar Extension, Ghaziabad and Jyoti
Nagar have been seized. Hence, it is prayed that the declaration may be
granted that plaintiff has no concern with the firm Kamakhya Steels
-- 1 of 3 --
and that a direction may be passed directing that the bank accounts of
the plaintiff may be de-sealed.
Submissions heard. Record perused.
Perusal of the pleadings show that the bank account
seized do not lie in the jurisdiction of this court. Furthermore, the
declaration with respect to the identity of the petitioner is sought,
however, plaintiff is also not a resident within the jurisdiction of this
court. Also, it is pertinent to note that the notice with respect to the
demand of GST amount was raised by the concerned Tax department
at district Siwan, Bihar. Therefore, no part of cause of action has arisen
before this court.
As far as the claim is concerned, that the defendant no.1
i.e. Ministry of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances lies
within the jurisdiction of this Court, it is pertinent to note that no cause
of action has arisen against the defendant no.1 as neither the defendant
no.1 has raised the demand regarding the GST nor passed directions
for seizure of bank accounts of the plaintiff.
Furthermore, as far as the contention is concerned that the
defendant no. 2 & 3 can be represented through the Resident
Commissioner, Govt of Bihar, Chanakyapuri, New delhi-110001, it is
pertinent to note that no claim of outstanding amount has been raised
by the said resident commissioner. Rather, the alleged demand of
outstanding amount of GST, whether rightly or wrongfully was
accrued at Bihar and not at Delhi. Therefore, the said demand was
raised by defendant no. 2 & 3 at Bihar and not within the jurisdiction
-- 2 of 3 --
of this court. Furthermore, the bank managers/ defendant no. 4 & 5,
who have freezed the bank account of the plaintiff and qua whom
directions are sought to de-seal the bank accounts are also not situated
within the jurisdiction of this court.
Hence, list for arguments on the maintainability of the
present plaint before this court on the ground of jurisdiction on
06.12.2025.
Rupinder Singh Dhiman
ACJ/CCJ/ARC, NDD, PHC
New Delhi :27.10.2025
-- 3 of 3 --