Prakash Nautiyal vs Union Of India And Another

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Vipul Sharma,

learned counsel for respondent no.2 and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The appellant is an allotee of a plot in IT Park, SIDCUL Selaque, Dehradun. It is his case that this plot was allotted to him in 2006 by the Uttar

Pradesh Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation before the assets of the corporation, located in the State of Uttarakhand, was taken

over from the Uttar Pradesh Corporation by the Uttarakhand Corporation. A demand notice was issued to the petitioner in July, 2012 seeking payment

of a sum exceeding Rs.51 Lakhs representing the principal amount which the petitioner had allegedly failed to pay in installments, along with penal

interest. After the petitioner had subjected the said demand notice to challenge in the present writ petition, he also submitted a representation which

was considered by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 23.07.2019. In terms of the decision of the Board of Directors, the respondent-

corporation waived penal interest, but insisted that the petitioner pay the principal amount which, according to them, was for a sum exceeding Rs.84

lakhs.

By his order in WPMS No.2738 dated 04.11.2019, the learned Single Judge permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh representation, or a claim

falling within the ambit of Clause 18 of the allotment letter, before the Managing Director within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the

order; and the Managing Director was directed to decide the same within three weeks thereafter, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being

heard. Since the writ petition has been pending on the file of this Court ever since 2013, it appears that the attention of the learned Single Judge was

not drawn to the Board of Directors resolution dated 27.06.2019, when he disposed of the Writ Petition by order dated 04.11.2019.

The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application in MCC No.1205 of 2019, seeking review of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.11.2019,

contending that, since the petitioner’s representation was rejected by the Board of Directors of which the Managing Director formed a part of, no

useful purpose would be served in approaching him again by way of a representation, since the decision of the Board of Directors would bind the

Managing Director also. The learned Single Judge, however, modified the earlier order dated 04.11.2019, by his order in MCC No.1205 of 2019 dated

07.12.2019, to the limited extent that the petitioner was permitted to question the subsequent resolution of the Board of Directors dated 27.06.2019 in

his representation to be submitted to the Managing Director. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal.

Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that the learned Single Judge had erred in

relegating the petitioner to submit a representation to the Managing Director, under Clause 18 of the letter of allotment, questioning the resolution

passed by the Board of Directors dated 27.06.2019; the Managing Director is a member of the Board; the resolution passed by the Board of Directors

binds the Managing Director; the Managing Director is not entitled to sit in judgment over the decision of the Board of Directors, or pass any order

contrary to the resolution of the Board of Directors; and this Court should, therefore, set aside the order under appeal, and hear the special appeal or

the writ petition itself on its merits. When we asked him what was the amount which the petitioner admits as due and payable to the respondent-

corporation, Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- writ petitioner, would submit that the amount payable by the

petitioner is less than Rs.5 Lakhs.

While fairly stating that the Managing Director cannot sit in judgment over the resolution passed by the Board of Directors dated 27.06.2019, Mr.

Vipul Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent-corporation, would submit that this Court would not, in proceeding under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, adjudicate disputed questions of fact, and undertake the task of determining whether the amount due and

payable by the petitioner is less than Rs.5 Lakhs, or, as claimed by the respondents, is for a sum exceeding Rs.84 Lakhs.

While the petitioner may not be in a position to approach the Managing Director in terms of Clause 18 of the allotment order, it is always open to

him to avail the common law remedy of filing a suit, before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, questioning the validity of the demand notice.

The dispute in this writ petition is mainly regarding the amount due and payable by the petitioner pursuant to the demand notice issued by the

respondent-corporation. While the petitioner claims that the balance amount payable by him is less than Rs.5 Lakhs, the stand of the respondent-

corporation is that the amount due and payable by him exceeds Rs.84 Lakhs. Disputed questions of fact, as to whether the amount payable by the

petitioner is less than Rs.5 Lakhs as contended by the petitioner or it exceeds Rs.84 Lakhs as claimed by the respondent-corporation, are ordinarily

matters which the High Court would not adjudicate in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as

these are matters with respect to which evidence may be required to be adduced, and a decision rendered on the basis of such evidence.

The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked only when the person, invoking its jurisdiction, complains of violation of his rights for

which there is no other forum for redressal. While the learned Single Judge may not be justified in relegating the petitioner to approach the Managing

Director under Clause 18 of the allotment letter, he cannot be faulted in not permitting the appellant-writ petitioner to invoke the extra-ordinary

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was justified in not entertaining this writ petition, since the rival contentions urged by parties on

either side, involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact. Suffice it, in such circumstances, to modify the order under appeal, and leave it open to

the appellant-writ petitioner, if he so chooses, to avail the common law remedy of a suit before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The special

appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The contentions urged before the learned Single Judge, both on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the

second respondent, are left open to be adjudicated by the Civil Court in accordance with law, in case its jurisdiction is invoked. No costs.