SURENDRA KUMAR RAI Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed by same petitioner against Zilla Parishad Jhansi and most of questions of fact and 1aw involved are common. Thus both writ petitions can be decided by a common order against which parties have also to objection. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23803 of 1991 shall be the leading case.

(2.) THE facts, in brief giving rise to Writ Petition No. 23803 of 1990 are that auction for grant of licence to realise and collect fee ad tolls on vehicles entering Zilla Parishad territory and using Bus Adda for the period 1st April 1988 to 31st March 1989 took place in which bid of the petitioners for Rs. 1,75,000/- being highest was accepted In pursuance of which the licence was issued in favour of petitioner which is Annexure1 to the writ petition. Out of the total bid money petitioner paid Rs. 1,05,000/ -. However he failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 70,000 In spite of the several demands the amount was not paid a recovery certificate was sent to the Collector, Jhansi to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from petitioner requiring him to No. 3 Tahsildar, Jhansi served a citation dated 1st September, 1990 on petitioner requiring him to pay Rs. 70,150 and collection charges and to appear before him on 8th September, 1990 Aggrieved by this demand made through the citation petitioner had filed this writ petition challenging the recovery of the amount and for quashing of the citation. , In this writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. This Court by interim order dated 7th September, 1990 stayed the recovery of the amount on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs. 10. 000/- with the opposite party No. 1 Zilla Parishad within a period of one month.

(3.) SHRI Jain has submitted that the contract for realisation of the toll and fee from the vehicles was void as its object was, not lawful. The Zilla Parishad had no authority, under law to realise the toll tax from petitioner as the contract was void. Reliance has been place for this submission on Section; 10,14 and 16 of the Contract Act. learned counsel has further submitted that in any case the unpaid amount of the contract money cannot be realised as land revenue arrears. The amount due from petitioner was neither the amount of tax nor fee but it was a premium on contract and in respect of which recovery certificate cannot be issued. It has been further submitted that in the Circumstances of the case collector could not have authority to realise the amount as land revenue arrears and this authority cannot he conferred on him by an agreement between the parties. The agreement, if any, is void for all purposes. There is no provision under. The kshetra Samities And Zilla Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 there- in-after referred to as Act) or Rules framed there under giving authority to Zilla Parishad to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue. It has been submitted that State or its instrumentalities cannot enter into a private contract which is not for a public purpose. If no public purpose is involved the contract will he hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. It has also been submitted that if the amount is realised as land revenue arrears petitioner shall suffer a serious prejudice us there is no machinery to quantify the amount which may be payable by petitioner. Various defences which may he available to petitioner in suit shall not be available to him in the present proceedings.