Dismissed

Mitra Kant Jha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC12 Feb 2013CWJC/387/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to allow the petitioner to continue collecting Bus Stand Licence fee and to quash a communication cancelling his settlement. The Court held the cancellation was justified due to Railway refusal to renew the land lease and refused to issue mandamus to perpetuate the illegal situation.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed as it did not find any merit.

Mitra Kant Jha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.387 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== Mitra Kant Jha Son Of Shri Abhinandan Jha Resident Of Ward No. 11, Jogbani, District : Araria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Represented through the District Magistrate, Araria 2. The District Magistrate, Araria

¶4

The Nagar Panchayat, Jogbani, District : Araria through its Chief Executive Officer And

¶5

The Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Jogbani, District : Araria

¶6

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli & Mr. Samir Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md. Shahab Khaliq, AC to SC-III ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER

¶8

3 12-02-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶9

The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent-authorities of the Nagar Parishad, Jogbani (Araria) to allow the petitioner to continue to recover Bus Stand Licence fee/fee till 31.3.2013 pursuant to the agreement dated 31.3.2012 executed between the parties and to quash the communication dated 12.12.2012 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Nagar

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.387 of 2013 (3) dt.12-02-2013

¶11

2 / 3

¶12

Parishad, Jogbani, Araria by which the petitioner has been informed that settlement of Bus Stand in his favour has been cancelled and he has been directed not to further collect the licence fee/fee with effect from 16.12.2012 and to receive back the proportionate settlement fee accordingly.

¶13

The petitioner under an agreement with the respondent Nagar Parishad had been granted the licence to collect Bus Stand licence fee/fee till 31.3.2013 but in the meantime by the impugned letter dated 12.12.2012 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Jogbani, it is stated that the Railways were requested to renew the lease of the land but the request has been rejected by the Railway authorities on the ground that the land of the railways is required for extension of the railway line and for development works and further direction has been received to vacate the said land; for the said reason the settlement of the said land as Bus Stand and the licence of the petitioner has been terminated by the decision taken in the general meeting of the Nagar Parishad on 16.12.2012 and the petitioner was, accordingly, directed not to make any collection after 16.12.2012 and to receive his refund of the settlement amount after the said period.

¶14

By a supplementary affidavit it has been alleged that after the revocation of the lease by the railway authorities and cancelling the settlement of the Bus Stand with the petitioner, the respondent Nagar Parishad has itself started realizing the fee of the buses being parked there and thus the cancellation of the settlement of the Bus Stand was a colourful exercise of power and in this regard a letter dated 4.2.2013 by one of the Ward Councilor of the Nagar Parishad, Jogbani

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.387 of 2013 (3) dt.12-02-2013

¶16

3 / 3

¶17

addressed to the District Magistrate has been enclosed. The said fact, even if correct, does not create any right in the petitioner, although the Nagar Parishad may itself be acting in an illegal manner. So far as the cancellation of the settlement in favour of the petitioner is concerned, the same would follow as the Railways have refused to renew the licence beyond 16.12.2012.

¶18

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact, it appears that there was no lease or licence in favour of Nagar Parishad for a long period of time, does not at all help his case as in such situation the settlement itself in his favour would be an illegal action of the Nagar Parishad authorities.

¶19

In any view of the matter, even if the Nagar Parishad has started to make collections illegally after cancelling the settlement with the petitioner, the same cannot be a ground for this Court to issue a mandamus to perpetuate the illegal situation and allow the petitioner to collect the parking fee from the Bus stand.

¶20

In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶21

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)

¶22

S.Pandey/-

Mitra Kant Jha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mitra Kant Jha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Surendra Prasad And Company Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Geeta Devi Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

M/s Sona Masala Udyog Vs The State Bank Of India and Ors.

Thakan Sah Vs The State Bank Of India and Ors.

Vinoy Krishna Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dayanand Prasad Sinha @ Company Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.