Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by UP Congress Committee (‘UPCC’), a national political party challenging the recovery notice dated 10-11-1998 issued by Tehsildar, the division bench of Vivek Chaudhary and Manish Kumar, JJ. has directed UPCC to pay UP State Road Transport Corporation (‘UPSRTC’) the entire due amount of Rs. 266 Lakhs along with an interest of 5% from the date it is due, within a period of three months.
In this case, UPSRTC claimed that an amount of Rs. 2,68,29,879.78/- is due to UPCC which UPSRTC is entitled to recover. The amount due is claimed to be the bills raised against use of buses and taxi services from UPSRTC by UPCC or its purposes when its Government was in power in the State of U.P.
The Court noted that by Notification dated 30-07-1975, UPSRTC stands notified under Section 2(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Money (Recovery of dues) Act, 1972 (‘Act,1972’), for the purposes of the said Act. However, there is no agreement between the parties that the aforesaid amount can be recovered, as arrears of land revenue under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act of 1972. Thus, the amount claimed by UPSRTC is not covered by Section 3 of the Act, 1972.
The Court said that the political party in power had exercised its dominant position and utilised public property for its political purposes. The bills were raised to the political party, but it ignored paying the same and, while the earlier dues were pending, again being in power it availed facilities from the UPSRTC without paying its dues. Further, it said that merely by stating that after change of government, due to political vendetta the amount is wrongly being recovered, or taking a technical ground that amount cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, it cannot be granted liberty to escape its liability to pay its bills. Thus, the Court held that UPCC is bound to pay the said amount as recovery of public money is involved in the present case, which is used for political purposes by UPCC.
After taking note of Shangrila Food Products Ltd. v. LIC, (1996) 5 SCC 54 and Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58, the Court said that while exercising power under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the Court must give and refuse relief in furtherance of public interest. Granting or withholding of relief must be dependent upon considerations of justice, equity and good conscience.
Further, it reiterated that the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in such a manner which would advance the end of justice and uproot injustice. It should exercise power conferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in a manner that provides complete and substantial justice to parties.
Thus, the Court held that UPCC is bound to pay the amount raised by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (‘UPSRTC’) for use of buses and taxi services by UPCC or its purposes when its government was in power in the State of U.P. Further, it said that even though the amount is not recoverable under the provisions of the Act, 1972, but this is a fit case for exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in favor of UPSRTC.
[U.P. Congress Committee v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 1913, Order dated 05-10-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate J.N.Mathur, Advocate I.H. Farooqui, Advocate Karunesh Kumar Srivstava, Advocate Prabhat Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent: Chief Standing Counsel D.K.Srivastava, Advocate M.Chandra, Advocate Prabhu Ranjan Tripathi, Advocate T.Somwanshi, Advocate Vishal Singh
Buy Constitution of India HERE
