Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 355 (ALL)

UNION OF INDIA v. STATE OF Uttar Pradesh

2018-02-08

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, IRSHAD ALI

body2018
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the citation dated 9.9.2004 issued by the respondent No. 3. 3. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court was pleased to pass an order on 16.9.2004, whereby an interim protection was granted restraining the respondents from proceeding any further with the recovery against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned citation dated 9.9.2004. 4. The respondent No. 5 filed a claim petition on the ground that her husband late Munni Lal was working as Keyman at the railway station Maghar and during the course of duty on 27.7.2001 he met with an accident and died on the spot. Respondent No. 5 filed a case before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner (respondent No. 4) under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The claim of the respondent No. 5 was allowed by the respondent No. 4 and award dated 27.1.2004 to the tune of Rs. 1,49,670/- alongwith 8% interest per annum was passed. 5. For the execution of the award passed by the respondent No. 4, an execution case was filed and in pursuance thereof a recovery certificate, for amount of Rs. 1,49,670/- alongwith the interest and recovery charges was issued by the respondent No. 3 on 2.8.2004. 6. The petitioners in pursuance thereof, upon taking legal opinion, satisfied the award by depositing an amount of Rs. 1,49,670/- alongwith interest amounting to Rs. 28,969/-, total Rs. 1,78,639/- vide Cheque No. 576350 on 16.6.2004. Even after deposit of the said amount to the satisfaction of the award, the revenue authority (respondent No. 3) issued a citation on 9.9.2004 for the attachment/personal appearance of the petitioner No. 1 before him on 16.9.2004 and directed to ensure payment of collection charges amounting to Rs. 16,864/- plus 200/-. 7. After issuance of the said notice dated 9.9.2004, the petitionera moved an application before the respondent No. 3 on 7.8.2004 requesting therein that in pursuance to the recovery certificate, the petitioners have deposited the requisite amount alongwith interest, thus, the notice issued on 9.9.2004 be discharged, but no action whatsoever was taken by the respondent No. 3. Hence the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 8. Hence the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once, after issuance of the recovery certificate, the petitioners had deposited the awarded amount alongwith interest, then there was no justification on the part of the respondents for issuing the impugned citation on 9.9.2004 for recovery of collection charges from the petitioners. He further requested that the action his wholly arbitrary and illegal and the citation dated 9.9.2004 is liable to be quashed. 9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of material on record, we find that by means of the impugned citation dated 9.9.2004 the respondent No. 3 had directed the petitioner to deposit the collection charges in pursuance to the recovery certificate issued by respondent No. 4. It further transpires on perusal of records that in pursuance to the judgment and award issued by the respondent No. 4, the petitioners have deposited the amount of award alongwith interest, as was shown in the recovery certificate. Thus, the notice dated 9.9.2004, for recovery of collection charges, issued by respondent No. 3 is wholly unwarranted. 10. Once the petitioner has complied with the direction issued under the award and has deposited the entire amount of recovery certificate alongwith interest, then there was no justification for issuing the impugned citation notice for recovery of collection charges. 11. In view of the above, the impugned citation dated 9.9.2004, being illegal, is hereby set aside. 12. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.