Dismissed

M/S Anand Enterprises Thru Its Partner Anurag Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Its Collector Varanasi and Others

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2019WRIC/10591/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought mandamus for correction of royalty statement and stay on coercive recovery. Court dismissed it, holding that since the basis recovery certificate was not challenged, consequential proceedings could not be obstructed, and the representation lacked statutory basis.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Anand Enterprises Thru Its Partner… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10591 of 2006

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Anand Enterprises Thru Its Partner Anurag Singh And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Its Collector Varanasi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nawal Kishore Mishra,U.K. Singh,Upendra Vikram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

The petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to provide correct statement of amount of royalty and interest thereon and further commanding respondents not to take any coercive measure for realization of any amount till representation dated 10.10.2005 is decided.

¶7

From record, it appears that A.D.M. (E), Varanasi has issued a recovery certificate dated 13.03.2001 for recovery of Rs.56,000/- from petitioners, as same is outstanding towards royalty and other dues. The aforesaid recovery certificate is not under challenge.

¶8

Counsel for petitioners despite repeated query of the Court could not show whether representation dated 10.10.2005 made by petitioners is referable to any statutory provision. Therefore, authorities are not under any legal obligation to decide the same.

¶9

In absence of any relief sought for quashing of order issued for recovery, there is no occasion for this Court to look into its correctness and to set aside it. In absence of challenge to the said order, High Court cannot restrain the consequential recovery proceedings as effect of said order cannot be ignored or obstructed.

¶10

In P. Chitharanja Menon and others Vs. Balakrishnan and others, AIR 1977 SC 1720 , Court held that in absence of

¶11

¶12

challenge to the basis order subsequent consequential action cannot be challenged. Similarly in Roshan Lal and others Vs. International Airport Authority of India and others, AIR 1981 SC 597 , it was held that unless basis order is challenge the consequential orders neither can be challenged nor be examined by the Court. This Court has also followed the above law in Gaon Shiksha Samiti, Auraiya and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2003 (3) AWC 2466 .

¶13

Unfortunately, since recovery certificate is not under challenge, no effective relief can be granted to petitioners.

¶14

Even otherwise, with reference to alleged amount for which demand notice has been issued, counsel for petitioners could not show any illegality or inaccuracy about outstanding against petitioners. As such, writ petition is wholly misconceived.

¶15

8. Dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.10.2019 Prajapati

M/S Anand Enterprises Thru Its Partner Anurag Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Its Collector Varanasi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Anand Enterprises Thru Its Partner Anurag Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Its Collector Varanasi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganga Prasad Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Basant Kumar Singh Vs State Consumer Protection Commission and 2 Others

Prasad Mandal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Auto Point Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajeev Agarwal Vs Collector and Others

M/S Jalan Service Station Bulandshahr Vs Union of India through Secretary New Delhi and Others