Dismissed¶25

Shiv Shankar Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Aug 2024L.P.A/1700/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court L.P.A. No.1700 of 2019 in C.W.J.C. No.14483 of 2019, order dt. 21-08-2024 (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ; Partha Sarthy, J): kiosk settlement, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna Municipal Corporation; allotment letter 18.11.1993; eleven-year settlement expired; notice of demand 18.02.2019; arrears Rs.3,26,808/- till March 2018; partial deposit Rs.1,76,808/- on 05.03.2019; unanswered representation; duty to deposit as per demand; bunks obstructing vehicles; rainwater harvesting; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Even if a representation had been filed and not considered, the petitioner had a duty to make the deposit as per the demand raised by the Corporation. ¶20

Shiv Shankar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the only argument addressed being that the petitioner's representation against the Corporation's notice of demand was not answered. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Even if a representation had been filed and not considered, the petitioner had a duty to make the deposit as per the demand raised by the Corporation.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's contention that he had been regularly paying rent is incorrect: after the notice of demand dated 18.02.2019 he admitted paying only half of the amount on 05.03.2019.

¶21

Key takeaways

In totality — the eleven-year settlement having expired long back, non-payment of rent and arrears despite demand, and the difficulties posed by the bunks to vehicular movement together with the need for a rainwater harvesting system — there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No.1700 of 2019 in C.W.J.C. No.14483 of 2019, Patna High Court, decided 21-08-2024) dismissed. The appellant had been settled a kiosk in the Maurya Lok Complex under the Patna Municipal Corporation by allotment letter dated 18.11.1993 for eleven years, continued thereafter with intermittent rent payments. The Corporation's notice dated 18.02.2019 demanded arrears of Rs.3,26,808/- (total dues till March, 2018); the appellant deposited only Rs.1,76,808/- on 05.03.2019 and nothing thereafter. Arguing solely that his 2019 representation against the demand notice went unanswered, he challenged the learned Single Judge's judgment. The Division Bench (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ; Partha Sarthy, J) held that even if a representation had been filed and not considered, the petitioner had a duty to deposit as per the demand; his claim of regular rent payment was incorrect; the settlement had expired long back, and the Standing Counsel pointed to obstruction by bunks and the need for rainwater harvesting. Finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, the appeal was dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1700 of 2019 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14483 of 2019

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Shiv Shankar Kumar son of Late Shyam Sunder Mahto Resident of VillageHouse No- 43, Mohalla- Kazipur, P.S.- Kadamkuan, District- Patna.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S. Kotwali, Town and Dist.- Patna through its Municipal Commissioner.

¶9

The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S. Kotwali, Town and Dist.- Patna.

¶10

The Director, Town Planning, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S. Kotwali, Town and Dist.- Patna.

¶11

The Estate Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S. Kotwali, Town and Dist.- Patna.

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S. Kotwali, Town and Dist.- Patna.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Kulanand Jha, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tewary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, AAG-7 Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶15

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶16

3 21-08-2024 The appellant is aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶17

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the only argument addressed would be on the representation of the petitioner not being answered. The

¶18

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1700 of 2019(3) dt.21-08-2024 2/3

¶19

petitioner had continued for long with a kiosk settled on him and had been paying rent. In 2019, when a notice of demand was issued, he made a representation which was not responded. The learned Single Judge has noticed that no response was made to the notice issued by the Corporation, which is factually incorrect, is the argument.

¶20

We see that the petitioner had been settled a kiosk in the Maurya Lok Complex, under the Corporation, by allotment letter dated 18.11.1993. Admittedly, the settlement was only for eleven years and even after that it was continued and the petitioner had been intermittently paying rent. The Corporation specifically issued a notice dated 18.02.2019 demanding arrears of Rs.3,26,808/-, which was the total dues till March, 2018. On 05.03.2019, the petitioner deposited Rs.1,76,808/- but he did not deposit any amounts thereafter. If a representation had been filed and even if the same had not been considered, the petitioner had a duty to make the deposit as per the demand raised by the Corporation.

¶21

We find the petitioner’s contention, that he had been regularly paying rent, is incorrect especially since a notice of demand was issued on 18.02.2019 and he admits to have paid only half of the amount on 05.03.2019.

¶22

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1700 of 2019(3) dt.21-08-2024 3/3

¶23

We also notice the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that the existence of bunks posed a difficulty in plying of vehicles through the road and the area needed rainwater harvesting system which was in addition to the fact that the petitioner had not been paying the rent nor depositing the arrears even after a demand has been raised. The petitioner’s settlement for 11 years had also expired long back.

¶24