JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - Petitioners 1 and 2 respondent No. 4, who Carry on the business of brick kiln in partner ship under the name and style of Umesh Int Udyog, Samapur, Tahsil Kunda, District Pratapgarh, which business is duly registered in the Sales Tax and Income-tax Department, have filed this writ petition praying that the S.D.O., Kunda, District Pratapgarh be directed to decide the application dated 23-9-1985 and to accept the balance of the amount due after adjusting Rs. 37,000/- paid on 9-9-1985 as well as to dispose of their objections dated 6-9-1985 and directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to accept bid, if any, of respondent No. 5 and/or to take any further action in pursuance of the alleged sale, if any, in favour of respondent No. 5 and directing the respondents 1 and 3 to refund to respondent No. 5 the amount deposited by him and set aside the sale, if any, in his favour as also directing respondents I and 2 not to remove or permit respondent No. 5 to remove any bricks from the brick Kiln of the petitioners and respondent No. 4 known as Umesh Int Udyog. Samapur, Tahsil Kunda. District Pratapgar. 2. It was averred that the aforesaid partnership was formed w.e.f. 1-1-1985. Prior to that the respondent No. 4 carried on business in partnership with the following persons in the given name of 'Hari Int Udyog' : 1. Dhanraj Singh, 2. Hari Om Shankar, and 3. Sant Ram This partnership firm was started in the year 1980-81 and closed on 30-11-1984 of which due intimation was sent to Sales Tax Officer on 31-12-1984. This business of brick kilns in the firm name of `Hari Int Udyog' was carried on the land belonging to respondent No. 4 at the same plot numbers where the present business of Umesh Brick Field was being carried on. It was further averred that prior to the formation of partnership firm Hari Int Udyog, the respondent No. 4 carried brick kiln business at the same site in partnership with the following persons since 1979-80 in the firm of 'Krishna Kumar Int Bhatta' This partnership was closed on 1-9-1981 and intimation there of was given to respondent No. 3 on 21-9-1981 vide receipt No. 192864 issued by respondent No. 3. (1) Bansi Lal, (2) Makhdoom Prasad. (1) Bansi Lal, (2) Makhdoom Prasad. It was further averred that on 5th September, 1985 the petitioner No. 2 was stopped by the officer of Tahsil Kunda from selling the brick kiln on the ground that he was served by warrant of sale of movable property that is bricks to the extent of about 7 lakhs 35 thousands which were alleged to have been attached in pursuance of a warrant dated 1-8-1985 and which was to be auctioned on 9-9-1985. Immediately thereafter an application dated 6-9-1985 was preferred for the stay of sale and also objections were filed before respondent No. 1 contained in Annexures 3 and 4 respectively. The validity of the attachment in the aforesaid application for stay was challenged on the ground that respondent No. 4 was engaged and has not been served with the notice of the aforesaid proceedings and there was no liability on the petitioners to pay the dues of respondent No. 4 who had only ?rd share in the firm. The petitioners also prayed for the stay of the sale proceedings of stocks of the bricks alleged to have been attached. On 9-9-1985 as directed by respondent No. 1 S.D.O., Pratapgarh, the petitioner deposited an amount of rupees thirty seven thousand where after the respondent No. I directed the petitioners 1 and 2 to deposit the balance amount by 17-9-1985. On 22-9-1985 the petitioners came to know that Tahsildar. Kunda, District Prataprarh, had alleged to have held the auction on 20-9-1985 which was sold to opposite party No. 5. Opposite party No. 5 alleged to have deposited an amount of Rs. 1,28,000/-on two different dates. Thereafter the petitioners submitted an application before opposite party No. 2 to deposit the entire balance of the amount and also prayed for the release of the attached property but no orders on any of the applications preferred by the petitioners were disposed of. It was further averred that respondent No. 4 owned , several other properties and the Government dues could be easily recovered therefrom. In the partnership firm-petitioner No. 3, share of respondent No. 4 is only ?rd and as such in the alleged attached bricks he cannot claim to have more than ?rd share. 3. It was further averred that respondent No. 4 owned , several other properties and the Government dues could be easily recovered therefrom. In the partnership firm-petitioner No. 3, share of respondent No. 4 is only ?rd and as such in the alleged attached bricks he cannot claim to have more than ?rd share. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioners 1 and 2 are not liable to pay dues if any against respondent No. 4 since they have no connection with the firm `Krishna Int Bhatta' and/or'Hari Int Udyog' in respect of which the Sales Tax dues are said to be due and in which respondent No. 4 was a partner. It was further averred that no sale proclamation specifying the date, time and place of the sale was issued for holding the sale on 9th September, 1985 or 20th Septermber, 1985 or any other date. Further no notice as envisaged in Rule 257 read with Zamindari Abolition Form 72 was issued to respondent NO. 4 or the petitioners intimating the sale. Moreover, even the adjustment of Rs. 37,000/- deposited by the petitioners was not made in the warrant of sale sent to respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 1. Even the application preferred by the petition dated 6-9-1985, objections dated 23-9-1985 and the application for stay preferred by the petitioners was not disposed of. It was further averred that non-acceptance of the amount tendered by the petitioners as also not passing any orders in the petitioners application dated 23-9-1985 and not disposing of the objections dated 6-9-1985 by respondent No. 1 is wholly illegal and unwarranted. 4. It is pertinent to mention here tnat 'Hari Int Udyog' through its partner Sri Hari Om Shankar had preferred a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 3210 of 1985. Admittedly, Hari Om Shankar was a partner in the said firm known as 'Hari Int Udyog' prior to 1-1-1985. It seems that with a view to evade the payment of liability of Sale Tax the said firm was dissolved on 30-11-1984. It is also admitted that respondent No. 4 carried on brick kiln business at the same site in the partnership with Bansi Lal and Makhdoom Prasad since 1979-80. This partnership was closed on 1-9-1981. It seems that with a view to evade the payment of liability of Sale Tax the said firm was dissolved on 30-11-1984. It is also admitted that respondent No. 4 carried on brick kiln business at the same site in the partnership with Bansi Lal and Makhdoom Prasad since 1979-80. This partnership was closed on 1-9-1981. In the said writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner was that the Bhatta did not run due to certain unavoidable circumstances in the years 1984-85 which was also mentioned in the accounts books. It was wrong to say that any of the partner told that the 'Bhatta run from 15-5-1984 to 20-6-1984. Even if the Udyog ran from 15-5.1984 to 20-6-1984, the Tax was excessive as within such a short period, production of bricks amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/- could not be done. Aggrieved against the order of the Sales Tax Officer the appeal was preferred before the Assistant Commissioner, Nyay-III, Sales Tax, Allahabad Region, Allahabad. The Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax, Allahabad rejected the appeal of the petitioner. After the rejection of the appeal the petitioner of the said writ petition could not deposit the imposed tax of Rs. 28,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 5000/- was imposed later on. Against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5000/- the petitioner of the said writ petition preferred an appeal in the Sales Tax Tribunal. Allahabad. The Sales Tax Tribunal stayed the recovery of Rs. 28,000/- as Sales Tax the condition that 10% of 'the disputed amount be deposited by the said petitioner. The said petitioner did not deposit the 10% of the disputed tax and he preferred an application for extension of time which was dismissed. He was again served with a notice for payment of Rs. 5000/- as penalty in the month of May, 1985 and hearing was fixed on 9-5-1985 but as nobody appeared on that date an ex parte order was passed confirmed the penalty. Thereafter on 30-5-1985 the Sales Tax Officer. Pratapgarh issued a recovery certificate and passed a detailed order. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition prayed that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner Nyay-II1, Sales Tax Allahabad Region and Sales Tax Officer, Pratapgar be quashed. Thereafter on 30-5-1985 the Sales Tax Officer. Pratapgarh issued a recovery certificate and passed a detailed order. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition prayed that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner Nyay-II1, Sales Tax Allahabad Region and Sales Tax Officer, Pratapgar be quashed. Dated 9-7-1985 while dismissing the said writ petition a Division Bench of this Court indicated as under : "During the course of arguments it was brought to our notice that a revision is pending against the order dated 31-12-1984 and on the stay application the Court directed that 20% of the tax assessed should be deposited. Against this order the petitioner has come up before this Court by means of this writ petition. This petition is not maintainable and no sufficient cause has been made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the. Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed." 5. It seems that after the dismissal of the said writ petition the recovery proceedings were initiated. The bricks kept in the brick kiln were attached and auctioned to opposite party No. 5. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the issue of the proclamation mainly on the ground that no date, time and place was issued for holding the sale and further no notice as in visaged in Rule 257 read with Zamindari Abolition Form 72 was. issued to respondent No. 4. Undoubtedly, he had preferred an application and objection against the sale proclamation before opposite party No. 1 which has not been disposed of. 6. By means of this writ petition the petitioner wants us to adjudicate upon the question as to whether the sale proclamation was proper or not or whether any notice for the same or any notice before the auction was served upon the petitioner or not. We do not consider it proper to adjudicate upon these questions firstly for the reason that these questions could be raised and agitated before the S.D.O. and secondly that the Zamindari Abolition Act and Rules framed thereunder itself provide an effective machinery for deciding the questions raised by the petitioner. The earlier writ petition which was filed by 'Hari Int Ydyog' through its partner Hari Om Shankar was dismissed on merit and the petitioners of the present writ petition who also claim them selves to be. partners have started this second inning by filing this writ petition. 7. The earlier writ petition which was filed by 'Hari Int Ydyog' through its partner Hari Om Shankar was dismissed on merit and the petitioners of the present writ petition who also claim them selves to be. partners have started this second inning by filing this writ petition. 7. No cogent reason or ground has been pointed out for our interference in the matter hence we are not inclined to invoke ours jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter and they writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the opposite party No. 1 that is S.D.O.. Kunda, District Pratapgarh is directed to dispose of the objections dated 6-9-1985 contained in Annexure-4 and the application dated 23-9-1985 contained in Annexure-6 on merits within fifteen days from the date of production of a certified copy this, Order by the petitioners on opposite party No. 1. There will be no order as to costs.