The court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of recovery and auction orders. It directed the petitioner to file objections before the Collector within 15 days, staying recovery and auction proceedings until the Collector decides.
Direction to file objections before the Collector within 15 days; stay on recovery and auction proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34686 of 2018
Petitioner :- Pradeep Garg Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel assisted by Sri Harsh Vardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the Staterespondents on the applications.
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 14.06.2018 passed by respondent No.5 and quashing the citation dated 02.07.2018 issued by respondent No.4 in so far as the same relates to the irremovable property of the petitioner situated at plot No.C32 RDC, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad as well as a direction declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in so far as the same relate to the sealing of the property of the petitioner on C-32 RDC, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad as null and void and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 22.09.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ghaziabad.
The petitioner is also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.09.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ghaziabad whereby auction notice has been issued fixing 23.10.2018 as the date for auction of the property in question.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one M/s N.K.G., Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. undertook works for construction of roads in Madhya Pradesh. The work contract was granted in 2008 for a period of 17 months. The contract came to be end in 2013 but thereafter an allegation was made some time in 2016 that the work which was carried out required some repairs for which notices had been given to the petitioner-firm which went without any response and therefore, the impugned recovery order dated 14.06.2018 was issued in response to which the recovery citation dated 02.07.2018 has been issued for recovery of sum of Rs.4,92,72,000/-.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is
owner of the premises, the address of which is C-32 RDC, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad and these premises have been given on rent to the company and the owner of the premises remains the petitioner and therefore, the notice if at all should have been issued to the company and not to the owner. The further submission is that the auction notice also is in respect of the same property C-32 RDC, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. He also submits that a letter was written by the company on 10.10.2016 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) denying that any sub standard work was done by the company, upon which the matter has been referred to the Arbitration Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh.
In our opinion if the premises in dispute belong to the petitioner, she may raise these objections before the Collector that she cannot be subjected to recovery or auction in pursuance of any recovery citation against the Company.
We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction that if the petitioner files appropriate objection before the Collector within 15 days from today in respect of her grievances as raised in the writ petition, the Collector shall decide the same within a further period of one month. Till the petitioner's representation is disposed of by the Collector the recovery in pursuance of the recovery citation dated 02.07.2018 as well as auction notice dated 22.09.2018 shall remain stayed and shall be subject to any final order which may be passed by the Collector.
Order Date :- 11.10.2018 Nitin Verma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be allowed to raise objections regarding recovery and auction proceedings before the Collector.
Whether the recovery citation directed against a company can be enforced against the owner of the premises.
Pradeep Garg
State Of U.P.
B. Amit Sthalekar
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
