SIA RAM Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVI S. Dyavan, J. The petitioner was given a contract upon acceptance of his bid in a public auction to realise the fee representing Tahbazari as also market foe under the Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961 and the rules under the Act, aforesaid, also the U. P. Zila Parishad and Keshetra Samiti (Imposition and Collection of Fees and Tolls) Rules, 1968.

(2.) THE petitioner contends in his writ petition that he could not work the duration of the contract and, thus, of the bid of Rs. 52,100 an amount of Rs. 25,000 having been deposited, he is not liable to pay the balance of consideration of the contract.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner that by law the respondents cannot realise the balance of the bid money which the petitioner had promised to pay, but would not pay, as arrears of land revenue, is mis conceived. Equity is against the petitioner when he contends in his petition that the contract had been frustrated and the record otherwise reveals that he had, in fact, discharged his functions under the contract, notwith standing that it may be only part of it. Whether damages are due to the respondents or the situation is to be mitigated in favour of the petitioner is not a matter which this court can decide in its writ jurisdiction with disputed questions of facts. On what the petitioner claims and alleges the only recourse to him if he is serious on his contentions is to bring an action against the respondents by way of a suit. Of the inhibition which the petitioner alleges against the respondents in realising the amount which he had promised to pay, but would not deposit, the petitioner, apparently though drawing the court's attention to Chapter VIII of the U. P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961, has not paid attention to Section 146 of the Act, aforesaid. If Chapter VIII is seen in isolation, then, what the petitioner contends is probably correct. But, Section 146 provides for recovery of fees and tolls which are levied under the Act. This section prescribes that any unpaid fees and tolls referred to in Sections 144 and 145 of the Act may be recovered in the manner prescribed in Chapter VIII. Thus, is not that any unpaid fees and tolls which the petitioner was meant to and may have realised under the contract as an agent of the State escapes from being realised as a public debt under Chapter VIII. Thus, on this contention the petitioner is in error. THE act itself provides for realising the unpaid fees and tolls and the respondents are not without authority of seeking the balance of the bid on which the petitioner's contract had been accepted.