Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 624 (UTT)

Harsh Mann v. Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd.

2023-11-06

RAKESH THAPLIYAL

body2023
JUDGMENT : By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to not take any coercive measures/steps against the petitioner for recovery of alleged amount of Rs. 11,34,232/- in view of order dated 31.07.2023 (Annexure No. 10); ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.07.2023 (Annexure No. 10) issued by respondent No. 1; iii. Pass any such other orders granting relief in favour of the petitioners which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and against the respondents; iv. Award the costs of this petition.” 2. The facts of the case are that the a lease agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 for operation of Tourist Accommodation House under PPP Mode for a period of five years i.e. from 01.05.2018 to 31.03.2023 at the annual rent of Rs. 2,32,000/- and Security of Rs. 57,500/- and GST at the rate of 18%. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the Lease Agreement, the petitioner duly paid the rent for the month of May, 2018 and continued to operate the guest-house, but due to cloud burst / natural calamity in Village Van on 21st July, 2018, the road and the bridge, which connects the guest-house, got washed-away due to which all transportation means to reach Village Van got affected. Consequently, the movement of tourists got restricted, which adversely affected the business of the petitioner. He could not run the guest-house and there was no profit, due to which he could not pay the rent. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that a reference has been made to the letter dated 03.11.2018 issued by the General Manager (Tourism) to the petitioner, whereby he has requested the petitioner to deposit the pending dues towards rent amounting to Rs. 96,665/- (Rs. Ninety Six Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Five Only). It is clearly mentioned in this letter that if the petitioner fails to deposit the said rent within one week, recovery proceedings will be initiated as per the provisions of the Land Revenue Act. 96,665/- (Rs. Ninety Six Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Five Only). It is clearly mentioned in this letter that if the petitioner fails to deposit the said rent within one week, recovery proceedings will be initiated as per the provisions of the Land Revenue Act. Thereafter, again on 15.07.2020 and 21.11.2020, letters were issued by the Assistant Chief Manager (Tourism) to the petitioner asking him to deposit the amount due towards rent. Since the petitioner could not deposit the amount, as asked to be deposited by letter dated 03.11.2018, consequently, on 31.07.2023, a letter was sent to the District Magistrate by respondent no.1 requesting him to recover Rs. 11,34,234/- from the petitioner. This letter dated 31.07.2023, the petitioner has enclosed with this writ petition. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which he has also pleaded in Paragraph-23 of the writ petition, that pursuant to the order dated 31.07.2023, now a Recovery Citation has been issued for an amount of Rs. 11, 34,234/- (Rs. Eleven Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Four Only), which is enclosed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that various representations were made to the respondents giving reference of the natural calamity, but no heed has been paid to those representations, however, Mr. Sandeep Kothari, who represents respondent Nos. 1 to 3, submits that the petitioner himself gave an undertaking that he is ready to pay the remaining amount within a period of two months and this letter was sent on 30.07.2019 and the petitioner himself admits his liability to pay the rent. 7. Once the petitioner has raised the grievances before the Authority concerned, the concerned Authority is under legal obligation to redress the grievances in accordance with law. 8. Certainly the guest-house was given on lease by the respondent Department to the petitioner, and if actually the guest-house could not run due to natural calamity, the respondent Department should have considered the case of the petitioner sympathetically. 9. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. 8. Certainly the guest-house was given on lease by the respondent Department to the petitioner, and if actually the guest-house could not run due to natural calamity, the respondent Department should have considered the case of the petitioner sympathetically. 9. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lacs Only) within one month from today and this statement is being given by him after getting instructions from his client, who is present in the Court, but he requests that simultaneously, the respondent Department be also directed to consider sympathetically the aspect that the guest-house could not run due to natural calamity and reduce the amount due towards rent. 10. Mr. Sandeep Kothari fairly submits that if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lacs Only) within a period of one month from today, then the respondent Department will consider the claim of the petitioner sympathetically. 11. After taking into consideration all the aspects, including the aspect that the guest-house could not run due to natural calamity since July, 2018, the respondent Department will take a decision as per law with regard to the amount of rent to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lacs Only). 12. The writ petition is finally disposed of.