MAHESH CHANDRA Vs. ZILA PANCHAYAT MAINPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Mahesh Chandra Challenges a recovery certificate issued against him for the recovery of Rs. 51,000/ -. A copy of the recovery certificate has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure '4' which mentions that the money may be recovered under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act.

(2.) THE petitioner participated in an auction by Zila Panchayat, Mainpuri for settling a right to remove and dispose of dead animals within the limits of block kurawali in district panchayat Mainpuri. THE petitioner's bid at Rs. 1,51,000/was highest and was accepted. He deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on the date of auction i. e. 221-1995, Rs. 20,000/- on 7-3-1995, Rs. 35,000/- on 21-3-1995 and Rs. 25,000/- on 22-7-1995. THE period of licence was to be for one year from 1-41995 to 31-3-1996. THE petitioner's case is that in spite of the petitioner's bid having been accepted and he having paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- out of the total bid amount of Rs. 1,51,000/- no licence in the prescribed form was actually issued to him and, therefore, he could not collect and dispose of the dead animals. According to him this work was got done by Zila Panchayat through its own employees. He is aggrieved by the steps taken by Zila Panchayat for the recovery of the balance of Rs. 51,000/- and claims that since the Zila Panchayat did not issue the licence it is not entitled to recover the balance and should in law refund the money paid by the petitioner. According to him the recovery of the balance of the bid money as arrears of land revenue is illegal.

(3.) AS stated above, there is dispute between the parties as to whether the petitioner actually availed of the right to collect and dispose of dead animals for which his highest bid was accepted by the respondent and for which the petitioner paid a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as mentioned above. This is a dispute question of fact and, therefore, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is not feasible to determine this dispute which is of pure fact and depends for its determination on oral and documentary evidence which can appropriately be decided only in other judicial proceedings like a suit. We, therefore, decline to go into this aspect of the matter leaving the parties to agitate it imappropriate forum. The only other point agitated between the parties was whether the dues in respect of the licence fee can be recovered as arrears of land revenue.