Petitioner sought quashing of an order increasing godown rent by 20%. Court held Regional Food Controller was competent authority under G.O. 2.5.2018 and dismissed petition.
Writ petition dismissed, holding Regional Food Controller competent to enhance rent by 20%.
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.
1
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38573 of 2019
Petitioner :- Chandrama Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Krishna,Abhishek Krishna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Govind Krishna learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioner herein is owner of the godown which has been taken on rent by the respondent no.2.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner herein seeks for quashing of the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby monthly rent of the Godown let out by the petitioner has been increased to the extent of 20% from the financial year 2019-2020. The order impugned has been passed by the Regional Food Controller, Azamgarh.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the rent agreement dated 20.10.2004, the godown-in-question has been given on rent at the rate of 4924.00/- month. On the prayer made by the petitioner, the enhancement in the rate of rent was approved by the order impugned to the extent of 20% only, whereas the District Magistrate, Mau had recommended for enhancement of monthly rent to the tune of Rs.19696.00/- month. The certificate dated 22.12.2018 issued by the District Magistrate, Mau is the basis of the contention of the petitioner to seek enhancement.
2
It is vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Regional Food Controller, Azamgarh has no jurisdiction to enhance monthly rent on his own rather he was required to act on the justification certificate given by the District Magistrate. As far as the upper limit to enhance 20% is concerned, the same can be applicable only with respect to the godowns which have been taken on rent on or after 14.7.2015. Placing paragraphs '15' and '16' of the G.O. dated 2.5.2018, it is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enhancement was required to be made either by the Regional Food Controller, Azamgarh on the basis of the justification certificate given by the District Magistrate or by the District Magistrate himself. In any case, the Regional Food Controller, Azamgarh was not competent to deny enhancement above 20%. At the most, the proposal made by the Regional Food Controller, Azamgarh, was required to be placed before the Commissioner concerned.
Considering the said submissions, it would be appropriate to first go through the G.O dated 2.5.2018 which is the bone of contention in this petition.
A careful reading of paragraph '14' along with paragraphs '2(1)', '15' '16' and '20' of the G.O dated 2.5.2018 shows that the intention to limit enhancement of monthly rent up to 20% is clear and categorical. Paragraph '14' of G.O clearly states that the prayer for review/enhancement of the monthly rent agreed between the parties can only be entertained after a period of five years. In the event of enhancement, after five years, increase up to 20% of the agreed rent or the rent suggested in the justification certificate given by the District Magistrate, whichever is less, can be accepted. All proposals for enhancement of rent can be accepted only by the competent authority. The limit of pecuniary jurisdiction has been laid down in paragraph '2(1)' of the said G.O. The approval of proposal for enhancement, if
3
required, has to be made by the Commissioner. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs '2(1)', '14', '15' & '16' of the G.O. dated 2.5.2018 are extracted hereinbelow:-
“2- इस संबंध मे मुझे यह कहने का िनदेश हुआ है िक िकराया स्वीकृिति की जटिटिल प्रक्रिक्रिया के कारण गोदाम िकराया स्वीकृिति /वृिद्धि मे आने वाली व्यावहािरक किठिनाइयों के फलस्वरूप स्वीकृिति मे होने वाले िवलम्ब, अनावश्यक मुकदमेबाजटी, संभागीय खाद्य िनयंत्रक, िजटलािधकारी एवं मण्डलायुक्त के प्रक्रशासकीय समन्वय गोदाम िकराये पर लेने की प्रक्रिक्रिया को सरल बनाने एवं िवकेन्द्रीकृति करने के उद्येश्य से गोदाम िकराया संबंधी वतिरमान मे प्रक्रचलिलति समस्ति शासनादेशों को अवक्र ि मति करतिे हुए नये एवं पुराने सभी प्र क ्ररणों मे एक प्रक्रिक्रिया लागू कर िकराया स्वीकृिति के अिधकार िजटलािधकारी एवं मण्डलायुक्त को िदये जटाने हेतिु िनम्नवति व्यवस्था लागू िकये जटाने की श्री राज्यपाल सहषर स्वीकृिति प्रक्रदान करतिे हैः-
(1) संभागीय खाद्य िनयंत्रक िजटलािधकारी एवं मण्लायुक्त को कितिपय शतिो एवं प्रक्रितिबंधो के अधीन
िनम्निलिखति तिािलका मे दी गयी दरो एवं सीमाओ के अंतिगरति अिधकारो का प्रक्रित ि नधायन:-
| क्रि | िकराये की स्वीकृिति देने वाले | िकराये की दर सीमा प्रक्रिति 100 | अिधकतिम मािसक |
|---|---|---|---|
| ० | अिधकारी का पदनाम | बोरा | िकराया |
| 1 | संभागीय खाद्य िनयंत्रक | रू० 160.00 | रू० 16000.00 |
| 2 | िजटलािधकारी | रू० 320.00 | कोई िवत्तीय सीमा नहीं। |
| 3 | मण्लायुक्त | रू० 320.00 से अिधक | कोई िवत्तीय सीमा नहीं। |
14गोदाम को िकराये पर लेने के पश्चलाति उस गोदाम के िकराये के पुनरीक्षण हेतिु न्यूनतिम अविध 05 वषर होगी। िनधारिरति 05 वषर की अविध के पश्चलाति िकराया वृिद्धि के प्र क ्ररणों मे स्वीकृति िकराये के 20 प्रक्रितिशति तिक की वृिद्धि अथवा िकराया वृिद्धि हेतिु िजटलािधकारी द्वारा िनगरति िकराया औचिचलत्य प्रक्रमाण पत्र की धनरािश जटो भी कम हो के आधार पर िकराया वृिद्धि की जटाय। प्रक्रचलिलति
4
शासनादेश िदनांक 14-7-2015 से जटो गोदाम िकराये पर िलए गये है , यह सीमा उन गोदामों पर लागू होगी। िकराया वृिद्धि के प्रक्रस्तिावों को स्वीकृति करने का अिधकार पूवर मे िकराया स्वीकृति करने वाले अिधकारी के अगले स्तिर पर होगा िकन्तिु यिद पूवर मे यह अिधकार आयुक्त खाद्य एवं रसद अथवा शासन को था तिो वतिरमान मे गोदाम िकराया वृिद्धि की स्वीकृिति का अिधकार मण्डलायुक्त मे िनिहति िकया जटातिा है।
15िदनांक 14-7-2015 से पूवर के िकराया वृिद्धि के प्र क ्ररणों मे प्रक्रस्तिाव को स्वीकृति करने का अिधकार मण्डलायुक्त को होगा जटो िकराया वृिद्धि के प्रक्रस्तिावों को गुण दोष के आधार पर परीक्षण कर स्वीकृिति देगे।
16गोदाम का िकराया िजटलािधकारी द्वारा िनगरति िकराया औचिचलत्य प्रक्रमाण पत्र के आधार पर स्वीकृति िकया जटायेगा। िजटलािधकारी िकराया औचिचलत्य प्रक्रमाण पत्र का िनगरमन 100 िकग्रा० का एक बोरा अथवा 50-50 िकग्रा० के दो बोरों के आधार पर सुिनित श्चलति करायेगे। सरकारी /अद्धिरसरकारी संस्था का गोदाम िकराये पर लेने की ित स्थिति मे िजटलािधकारी द्वारा िनगरति िकराया औचिचलत्य प्रक्रमाण पत्र की आवश्यकतिा नहीं होगी औचर इन्हे संस्था द्वारा िनधारिरति िकराये पर िलया जटा सकेगा। "
It is, thus, transpired that the District Magistrate can only give its opinion justifying the enhancement of rent below 20%, in the certificate issued by him. Para '14' contains the upper limit of 20% for enhancement of monthly rent fixed for the godowns taken on rent on or after 14.7.2015.
Paragraph '20' of the G.O dated 2.5.2018, however, states that the godowns which are in tenancy and where rent has not been enhanced, the Regional Food Controller, the District Magistrate or the Divisional Commissioner would be entitled to take a decision up to the limit of their pecuniary jurisdiction. The limit of jurisdiction of the competent authority namely the Regional Food Controller, the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner has been fixed in paragraph '2(1)' as extracted above.
5
Para '20' of the G.O dated 2.5.2018 further reads as under:-
“20- गोदाम जटो िक िवभाग की िकरायेदारी मे वतिरमान मे च ल रहे है िकन्तिु उनकी िकराया स्वीकृिति, िकराया वृिद्धि अभी तिक नही हुई है उन प्र क ्ररणों मे संभागीय खाद्य िनयंत्रक िजटलािधकारी व मण्डलायुक्त इस आदेश मे अनुमन्य अिधकार सीमा तिक स्वीकृति कर सकेगे।"
Having carefully gone through the above paragraphs of the G.O dated 2.5.2018, we are of the considered opinion that the Regional Food Controller, Azamgarh was the competent authority to make enhancement in the monthly rate of rent and the order impugned is in the spirit of the said G.O. The Regional Food Controller cannot be said to be either lacking in jurisdiction or acting arbitrarily in passing the impugned order.
No interference as such can be made.
The writ petition is, accordingly , dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.11.2020
Harshita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Regional Food Controller had jurisdiction to enhance rental rate under G.O. dated 2.5.2018 despite the District Magistrate's recommendation exceeding 20%.
Whether the impugned order enhancing rent by 20% violates the jurisdictional limits placed on the Regional Food Controller by the Government Order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandrama Prasad
State Of U.P.
Sunita Agarwal
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
