RURAL LITIGATION Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) dtd. 19/2/2019 We had, in our order dtd. 14/2/2019, noted the submission of Mr. K.H. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the decision of the Council of Ministers was not to waive the rent of government buildings allotted to Ex-Chief Ministers of the State, but only to request the High Court to permit waiver of the rent, determined as due rent for government buildings, in the light of the priceless services rendered by the Ex-Chief Ministers of the State.

(2.) We had noted that, while Paragraph No.2 of the note submitted to the Council of Ministers on 1/2/2019, no doubt refers to the proposal to take approval from the Council of Ministers to request the High Court to accord permission to waive the rent, Paragraph No.6 of the note records that the Council of Ministers were requested to accord approval on Annexure No.1 to the note. As a copy of Annexure No.1 was not filed along with the supplementary counter-affidavit, we had, in our order dtd. 14/2/2019, opined that it was necessary to peruse Annexure No.1 to the note. We had directed that the matter be listed today after recording the submission of the learned Advocate General that he would produce Annexure No.1 to the note by then.

(3.) Today an affidavit is filed by the Additional Secretary to the Government Estate Department dtd. 18/2/2019. It is stated therein that a letter dtd. 14/2/2019 was addressed by the Additional Secretary to the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel informing him that there was a mistake in Paragraph No.6 of the note dtd. 1/2/2019, put up before the Council of Ministers; and, instead, Paragraph No.6 of the note should be read as Paragraph No.2 of the note instead of Annexure No.1. It is also stated that the State Government had issued Office Order dtd. 14/2/2019 thereafter, and the inconvenience caused by the mistake in Paragraph No.6 of the note dtd. 1/2/2019 put up before the Council of Ministers, wherein Annexure No.1 has been mentioned in the place of Paragraph No.2, is deeply regretted.