Vikas Rajput vs Adhishashi Abhiyanta

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Mr. Lok Pal Singh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. H. M. Raturi, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mrs. Beena Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

The Petitioner was granted a contract for realization of toll tax at National Highway No. 74, District Haridwar on Haridwar-Nazimabad-Kashipur-Pilibhit-Bareilly Marg at Ravasan Bridge. In performance of this contract, the Petitioner submitted two FD Rs of Rs. 10 lakhs each. The period of the contract came to an end on 31.03.2009. The Petitioner did not pay the last three installments and requested the authorities to adjust the three installments from the FD Rs.

It transpires that the silent partner of the Petitioner filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh praying for that one of the FD Rs belongs to him and the same should not be encashed by the authorities. An injunction order has been granted in favour of the silent partner restraining the opposite parties from encashing the FD Rs.

As a result of the aforesaid, the present recovery notice has been issued calling upon the Petitioner to pay the amount. Since the Petitioner has failed to pay the amount, the recovery certificate has been issued. The Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the matter is sub-judice before the Civil Court, Jabalpur and, consequently, the recovery should be kept in abeyance till such time the suit is not finally decided. Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that prior to the expiry of the period of notice, the recovery certificate has been issued and, therefore, the Petitioner was not given ample opportunity to pay or rebut the same.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the court finds that the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is patently misconceived and bereft of merit. The Petitioner is in an equity court and equity is not in his favour. Admittedly, the Petitioner entered into a contract with open eyes and ears and was conscious of the fact that he is required to pay the contracted amount in various installments. The Petitioner admits that he has failed to pay the last three installments and the income tax which was payable on it. The request of the Petitioner that the amount should be adjusted from the FD Rs cannot be exceeded to in view of the suit filed by his partner before the Jabalpur Court. It transpires that the suit filed by the partner was against the Petitioner and in this interse dispute, the contracting authorities are unnecessarily being dragged into this frivolous litigation. The Respondents cannot wait till the result of the civil suit in which the Respondents have nothing to say. The Respondent authorities are required to recover the amount as per the contract. Since the Petitioner failed to pay the amount, the authority was justified in issuing the recovery certificate under the contract. The court does not find any illegality in the issuance of the recovery certificate. The Petitioner being an equity jurisdiction is not entitled for equitable relief. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.