Allowed

Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Mar 2018WRIC/62391/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging orders demanding full auction consideration money, the Single Judge held that the Zila Panchayat's delay in executing the lease and work order precluded the demand. The court allowed the petition, set aside the lower orders, and directed money collection on a pro-rata basis for the actual collection period. Relief is in favour of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders by Additional Chief Executive Officer and Commissioner set aside; Zila Panchayat directed to charge money from petitioner in proportion of days of actual collection.

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Reserved

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 62391 of 2017

¶4

Petitioner :- Vijay Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.D. Tiwari, M.D. Singh “Shekhar”, Madhuri Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Anshu Chaudhary

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

¶6

Heard Sri M.D. Singh “Shekhar”, Senior Advocate assisted by Miss. Madhuri Singh, for the petitioner and Sri Anshu Chaudhary, for respondents-4 and 5.

¶7

The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Additional Chief Executive Officer, dated 05.05.2017, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay full amount of Rs. 49.10 lac of auction money and Commissioner, dated 07.12.2017, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

¶8

3 Zila Panchayat Auraiya held an auction for collection of transportation fee from the vehicles engaged in transportation of sand, bazara, morang, concrete etc. on 30.04.2016. This auction was canceled and a fresh notice for auction was published on 05.05.2016, fixing 12.05.2016 for auction, for a period from the date of agreement to 31.03.2017. Entire auction money was required to be deposited at one time immediately after acceptance of bid. In the auction dated 12.05.2016, the petitioner was the highest bidder for Rs. 49.10 lac. Bid of the petitioner was approved. The petitioner deposited Rs. 12-00 lac as part of auction money and Rs. 50,000/- as security money. However, lease deed was executed on 09.12.2016 and work order was issued on 13.12.2016. After execution of work order, the petitioner started collecting transportation fee till expiry of his term on 31.03.2017.

¶9

Additional Chief Executive Officer, issued a letter dated 06.02.2017, to the petitioner, calling him to deposit remaining amount of Rs. 36.60 lac of auction, within three days. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 25.03.2017, stating therein that as work order was issued to him on 13.12.2016 as such his period for collection of transportation fee was only for three months 17 days as such auction money be taken in proportion of the period of collection actually done by him. Prior to 13.12.2016, Zila Panchayat itself was collecting transportation fee. However, Additional

¶10

¶11

Chief Executive Officer, by order dated 05.05.2017, held that as the petitioner had offered bid for Rs. 49.10 lac, knowing all the facts and circumstances as such he is liable to pay entire amount of the bid. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before Commissioner, who by his order dated 07.12.2017, dismissed the appeal, holding that according to the terms and conditions of agreement, the petitioner was liable to pay entire auction money. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

¶12

I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Although, auction held on 12.05.2016 was confirmed at that time but Zila Panchayat took unreasonable time in executing agreement of lease and issuing work order. Agreement was executed on 09.12.2016 and work order was issued on 13.12.2016. Admittedly Zila Panchayat has collected transportation fee till execution of work order on 13.12.2016.

¶13

Although, in auction notice, entire auction money was required to be deposited, at one time, immediately after acceptance of bid, but in this case Zila Panchayat has not insisted the petitioner to deposit entire auction money immediately after acceptance of his bid. For not depositing entire auction money, bid was liable to be canceled but Zila Panchayat had not canceled the bid of the petitioner. In the agreement dated 09.12.2016, it has been mentioned that period of theka would start from issue of work order, which was issued on 13.12.2016. Payment of entire auction money, for remaining period was not made a condition in agreement dated 09.12.2016, as Zila Panchayat itself had taken unreasonable time in execution of agreement and work-order and during this period had collected transportation fee. There is no justification for Zila Panchayat to insist the petitioner to deposit entire amount of auction after expiry of period of theka .

¶14

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of Additional Chief Executive Officer, dated 05.05.2017, and Commissioner, dated 07.12.2017 are set aside. Zila Panchayat may charge money from the petitioner in proportion of the days for which he had collected transportation fee.

¶15

Order Date :- 27.3.2018 mt

Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Krbl Limited through Its Chairman and Managing Director Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishna Gopal Vs H.D.F.C Bank Ltd. and Another

Devendra Kumar alias Sheroo Vs Nagar Nigam and 5 others

Sohail Ahmad Assistant Manager U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs Sone Lal Gupta and Another

Shri Rajendra Yadav Vs Pradhan Prabandhak, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mils Ltd. and 2 Ohters