Panchayat Udyog Jhanjhari vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard.

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Panchayat Udyog, Jhanjhari, district Gonda [Petitioner No. 1] is a body constituted u/s 30 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The opposite party No. 8 sanctioned a grant of Rs. 54,500/- for establishing Printing Press in public interest in the year 1979. For this purpose, no agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and either of the opposite parties but the opposite parties started recovery proceedings. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that as the amount was in the nature of grant, there was no liability upon the Petitioners to refund the amount advanced to them by the opposite parties. It has also been argued that the opposite party No. 2 being a statutory body under the Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, can proceed to recover the arrears of Taxes and others dues only in accordance with the provisions made under chapter VIII of the said Act. Therefore, the impugned recovery certificate, order of attachment and proclamation of sale are non est and without jurisdiction.

This writ petition was filed in the year 1992 and this Court while entertaining and admitting the writ petition passed an ad-interim order dated 26.2.1992 staying the recovery proceedings. Order sheet reveals that opposite parties were granted time to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed. On 4th April, 2011 the Standing Counsel was again granted last opportunity to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed. Therefore, the facts mentioned in the writ petition remained uncontroverted.

It may be noted that from the perusal of order dated 30.8.1979 passed by Additional District Magistrate/Chief Executive District Board, Gonda (Annexure-6) it is evident that the amount of Rs. 54,5000/- was advanced to the Petitioner for establishment of Printing Press. It was further provided that vouchers of expenditures shall be submitted to the Block Development Officer, Jhanhari. There is no mention of mode of re-payment or any other terms and conditions. Thus, it is evident that the amount was not given as a loan. The letter dated 15th September, 1990 (Annexure-12) of Chief Development Officer, Gonda also establishes that the said amount was not a loan but was in the nature of advance and for this reason there is no mention of rate of interest. Under these circumstances, he requested the Chairman, District Board, Gonda to recall the recovery certificate.

In view of the above, the impugned recovery proceedings, attachment order and proclamation for sale are non est and bad in law. Accordingly, the recovery proceedings initiated against the Petitioners are hereby quashed. However, as the amount has been mentioned as an advance, same shall be returned in three easy installments. It is clarified that no interest shall be charged.

The writ petition stands allowed in above terms.