Remanded

Shahana Begum v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jun 2022WRIC/11551/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a recovery certificate issued for auction money and GST relating to a tender. The High Court held that a speaking order was required to address the petitioner's plea of non-participation and forgery before issuing the certificate, directing the respondents to decide within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.5 to pass a speaking order on the petitioner's objection within three weeks; recovery certificate held in abeyance for five weeks.

Shahana Begum Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11551 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Shahana Begum Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratish Kumar Singh,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Bahadur Singh,Kuldeep Singh Chauhan

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed calling in question a recovery for a sum of Rs. 74,54,134.00/- being made from the petitioner as the auction money plus GST payable by her for a Theka (tender) relating to Pasu Mandi, Kamela Road, Saharanpur for the year 2021-22.

¶7

The case of the petitioner is that on receipt of a notice in this behalf from respondent no.5 dated 18.3.2021, the petitioner filed objection dated 27.3.2021 clearly mentioning that the petitioner had never participated in any auction nor ever submitted any bid. She also denied having furnished any surety and alleged that some other person had misused/forged her signature in obtaining the Theka (tender). It is submitted that without deciding the said plea, the respondents have proceeded to issue recovery certificate.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 tried to contend that the petitioner has taken a false stand and the respondent-Authority has evidence to show that the Theka (tender) was in fact taken by the petitioner.

¶9

In our opinion, once the petitioner had filed objection taking a specific stand that she had not made any bid, it was incumbent upon respondent no.5 to have decided the said plea by a

¶10

speaking order, before proceeding to issue recovery certificate.

¶11

Accordingly, we direct respondent no.5 to consider and pass speaking order on the objection of the petitioner dated 27.3.2021 (sent by registered post) within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of true attested copy of the instant order along with photo-copy of the objection.

¶12

The petitioner shall file copy of this order along with photocopy of the objection before respondent no.5 positively within two weeks from today and whereupon decision shall be taken within next three weeks by respondent no.5.

¶13

For the period of five weeks, the recovery certificate shall remain in abeyance and will thereafter abide by the decision that would be taken by respondent no.5 on the objection of the petitioner.

¶14

In case, the petitioner fails to file true copy of the instant order along with photo-copy of the objection before respondent no.5 within the time specified above, the interim protection granted to the petitioner will lapse automatically and it shall be open to the respondents to proceed further in pursuance of the impugned recovery certificate.

¶15

The petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶16

Order Date: - 8.6.2022 CS/-

¶17

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.06.10 15:52:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahana Begum v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahana Begum 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 Khadi Gram Udyog Jan Sewa Sansthan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kusum Vs General Manager Uco Bank Zonal Office Kanpur Nagar and Another

Shabnam Shafiq Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjoo Gond Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kashif Bashar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shyam Babu Verma and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others