Disposed

The Cantonment Board, Agra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2018WRIC/42386/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought mandamus for payment of service charges by the Police Motor Vehicles Workshop to the Cantonment Board, Agra. The court held this is a dispute between government departments and directed the respondent to constitute a Mediation Committee to decide the amount and accuracy of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to constitute a Mediation Committee to examine the claim and decide the service charges within six months.

The Cantonment Board, Agra Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42386 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- The Cantonment Board, Agra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. C.B. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ankit Gaur, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed, inter alia , for the following relief:

¶7

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the officer incharge, police motor vehicles workshop Uttar Pradesh Police, respondent no.2 to make payment of Rs.44,78,142,94 (Rs.Forty Four Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand One Hundred Forty Two Two and Ninety Four Paisa only) to the petitioner Cantonment Board on account of service charges as demanded through letter dated 27.6.2018 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition)."

¶8

The main contention of the learned counsel for

¶9

the petitioner is that the bill of service charges is not being cleared for the services being provided by the Cantonment Board, Agra to the Police Motor Vehicles Workshop, Uttar Pradesh . He further submitted that the Police Motor Vehicles Workshop, Uttar Pradesh is a department of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and the opposite party no. 2 is the Incharge of the said Office. He further submitted that the opposite parties are under the control and supervision of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Ministry of Police Motor Vehicles Workshop, Uttar Pradesh is the head of the department. He further submits that the Police Motor Vehicles Workshop, Uttar Pradesh Police is situated at the land of the Cantonment Board Agra viz.Bungalow No. 15/2,Taj Road, Agra Cantt, Agra, which is within the local limit of Cantonment Board Agra and the petitioner(cantonment Board Agra) being a local body provides municipal services and therefore the Cantonment Board, Agra is entitled to service charges for the facilities provided to the Police Motor Vehicles Workshop, Uttar Pradesh by the Cantonment Board, Agra. He further submits that the provision of section 109 of the Cantonment Act,2006 provides that the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, shall pay to a Board annually service charges for providing municipal charges for development work in a cantonment board where the central or the State Government properties are situated and the central Government has also issued guidelines in this regard.He further submits that under the guidelines issued by the Central Government,the petitioner made demand for payment of service charges but no service

¶10

charge has been paid at any point of time by the opposite parties in spite of demand made by the petitioner.

¶11

A similar dispute had earlier arisen in the case of Cantonment Board, Varanasi through Chief Executive Officer Vs. Union of India & Others by means of Writ Tax No.1292 of 2011 which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 3.10.2013 wherein it was held that the Cantonment Board is entitled to levy the service charges on the Railways for services being provided by the Cantonment Board. It is further submitted that the matter went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court passed various orders entitling the Cantonment Board to charge service charges from the Railways.

¶12

Learned Standing counsel although accepts that the Cantonment Board is entitled to charge service charges but has made certain objections with regard to the area and amount as claimed by the Cantonment Board, Agra. He has further submitted that pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court dated 20.3.2017 passed in Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 1366113662/2015, Cantonment Board, Agra Vs. Union of India and another in respect of Agra a Mediation Committee was constituted to look into the calculation made for service charges and for minor disputes with regard to the situation of land and area of the land etc.

¶13

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. In our view these are two government departments contesting amongst each

¶14

other and as earlier directed by Supreme Court a Mediation Committee has to be constituted by the respondent no.1, if not already constituted for Cantonment Board, Agra and thereafter the Mediation Committee would look into all these aspects and decide the same in accordance with law as far as possible within six months according to the rights and liabilities of the parties.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.12.2018

¶17

MLK

The Cantonment Board, Agra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Cantonment Board, Agra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anjana Anand Devi Vs Senior Manager/Chief Officer Central Bank of India

Vishwa Nath Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Suresh Chandra Nigam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

The Cantonment Board, Agra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hafiz Khan Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Mohd. Saleem Ahmad Vs State of U P and 2 Others