LALIT MOHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who at the relevant time was appointed on ad hoc basis as Sales Point Supervisor in the Agriculture Department and posted in BabaganJ Block and given charge of Fatuhabad Seed Store, has come up with two fold prayers : (i) to quash the citation dated 22.12.1987 issued by the Assistant Collector and Tehsitdar. Tehsil Phulpur, district Allahabad as contained in Annexure 4 [wrongly mentioned in the prayer portion as the order dated 22.12.1987) asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 5.226.81 plus interest plus collection charges allegedly and (ii) to command the respondents not to adopt any coercive measure compelling him to pay the amount in question.

(2.) Having regard to the submissions made at the Bar by Dr. R. G. Padia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. H. R. Mishra, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the only moot question which arises and requires our answer is as to whether the word 'moneys' or 'securities for money' mentioned in Section 3 of the Public Accounts' Default Act, 1850. under which action has been taken by the respondents, according to Sri Mishra. will include seed and fertilizers which were put in the custody of the petitioner?

(3.) According to Dr. Padia. this question stands answered In favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench of our Court in State of U. P. v. Girja Dayal Srivastava. 1988 (56) FLR 383. The relevant part of the judgment relied upon by Dr. Padia reads thus :