Dismissed

Raman Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2019WRIC/29870/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the petitioner's third writ petition seeking refund of security deposit and compensation for breach of fishing contract. The court held the petition was not maintainable as the civil remedy was available for breach of contract damages and the petitioner had already lost a writ petition on the same reliefs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/-.

Raman Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29870 of 2019 Petitioner :- Raman Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

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

¶3

Heard Ms. Sandhya Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Pradeep Verma, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶4

Petitioner has filed present writ petition challenging order dated 8.5.2019, passed by respondent No.2 Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra and for mandamus commanding respondent No.2 to refund security amount along with compensation in respect of auction of fishing rights in respect of Amoli Bandh for the period July, 2015 to June, 2018.

¶5

From perusal of record, it transpires that petitioner earlier approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 19143 of 2018 (Raman Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others) for the same reliefs as claimed in present writ petition. Aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 3.7.2018, which reads as under:

¶6

"Heard Sri Pradeep Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

The petitioner alleges that he was granted fishing right upto 30th June, 2018 at Amoli Bandhi but he was not allowed to operate it by the officers of the Forest Department. He further submits that the security deposited for the purpose has been released.

¶8

In case security of the petitioner has not been released, he may approach the authority concerned and it is expected that the competent authority will

¶9

take a fresh decision thereon, in accordance with law.

¶10

In case the petitioner has not been allowed to operate the fishing right and he has suffered any loss, the remedy of the petitioner is by way of filing a suit for damages.

¶11

The petition lacks merits and it is dismissed accordingly."

¶12

Thereafter, petitioner filed second writ petition being Writ Petition No. 2126 of 2019 (Raman Kumar Vs. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another), which was disposed of finally vide order dated 28.1.2019. For ready reference order dated 28.1.2019 is reproduced herein below:

¶13

"Lawyers are on strike, therefore, no one is present.

¶14

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondents to refund the security amount deposited by him before the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra in respect of fishery rights over the pond situated in Amoli Bandhi from July, 2015 to 30.06.2018. The petitioner in his relief no.2 also wants that his representation may be decided.

¶15

No useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending.

¶16

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with the direction that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation before the respondent no.2, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra raising all his grievances as raised in the present writ petition within a period of 15 days from today alongwith the certified copy of this order, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a further period of three months.

¶17

It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits. "

¶18

In compliance of order dated 28.1.2019, Petitioner filed a representation

¶19

dated 12.2.2019 before respondent No.2, which was rejected by respondent No.2 i.e. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra vide order dated 29.8.2019. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 29.8.2019 and also on account of refusal to refund amount of security deposited by petitioner, petitioner has filed present writ petition.

¶20

Petitioner basically is claiming breach of contract regarding fishing rights. First writ petition filed by petitioner i.e. Writ Petition No. 19143 of 2018 was dismissed vide order dated 3.7.2018. Persual of order dated 3.7.2018 clearly goes to show that writ petition was dismissed by observing that if petitioner has suffered any loss on account of being restrained from enjoying fishing rights, remedy of petitioner lies in filing a suit for damages. However, in respect of non refund of security, it was left open to approach authority concerned to pass a fresh order. Therefore, in respect of damages suffered by petitioner on account of being unable to operate the lease, remedy of petitioner was to file a civil suit in Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶21

However, instead of filing a suit, petitioner filed second writ petition claiming refund of security amount deposited before respondent No.2 Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra and also for a direction that his representation may also be decided. This Court disposed of the above second writ petition with direction that in case petitioner prefers a fresh representation before respondent no.2 raising all his grievances, same shall be decided within a period of 15 days from date of order i.e. 28.1.2019. Pursuant to aforesaid order, petitioner made a representation dated 12.2.2019. However, same is not on record. Aforesaid representation has been rejected vide order dated 12.2.2019 and consequently, petitioner has now approached this Court for above mentioned reliefs by means of peresent writ petition.

¶22

Now that representation filed by petitioner has been decided, pursuant to above order, the same will not give any cause of action, since with respect to breach of contract, the petitioner had already lost Writ Petition No. 19143 of 2018 (Raman Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others) Present writ petition is third writ petition regarding refund of security amount, which is not maintainable.

¶23

Dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/-.

¶24

Order Date :- 1.10.2019 Arshad

Raman Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raman Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhura Singh Vs Smt. Brijeshwari and 2 Others

Jaswant Prasad and Another Vs District Magistrate/Collector and Others

M/S Rashtriya Gramodyog Sansthan and Another Vs Mukhya Karyapalak Adhikari U.P. Khadi and Others

Devendra Singh Parihar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Pooja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rekha Vs Sri Sunil Kumar