HARI SANKAR SAHU Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BARIPADA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has assailed the order dated 31.5.2001 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, opposite party no.3, in Certificate Appeal No.7 of 2000, vide Annexure -11, dismissing the same and thereby confirming the order dated 25.10.2000 passed by the Revenue Officer -cum -Certificate Officer, Baripada, opposite party no.2, in Certificate Case No.1 of 1995, vide Annexure -10. By order dated 25.10.2000, opposite party no.2 allowed the Certificate Case filed by the Executive Officer, Baripada Municipality, opposite party no.1 and directed the petitioner to pay the full outstanding dues with interest with effect from the date of signing of certificate i.e. on 25.11.2000.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioner are that he was a licensee in respect of Station Daily Market, Baripada. Opposite party no.1 granted licence to him for one year i.e. from 1.4.1992 to 31.3.1993. The licence fee was settled at Rs.2,58,500/ -. An agreement was entered into between him and opposite party no.1. It was mentioned in clause -6 of the said agreement that if the market will be taken over by the Regulated Market Committee through legal process, the petitioner will pay the amount proportionate to the bid money of Rs.708.22 paisa per day i.e. Rs.2,58,500/ - from 1.4.1992 till the date of possible taking over of the market by the Regulated Market Committee and the balance amount, if any from the installment deposited, shall be refunded to the licensee. The licensee was to keep regular accounts of his collection from 1.4.1992. The petitioner was to pay the said amount in four installments i.e. Rs.64,625/ - each. He deposited an amount of Rs.25,790/ - towards the security deposit, which was to be adjusted towards 4th installment. He paid the 1st and 2nd installments in time. Third installment was due on 15.9.1992, but the same was paid on 26.10.1992, for which interest of Rs.323/ - was paid by the petitioner. The 4th installment was due on 15.12.1992. The opposite party no.1 in its letter dated 23.12.1992 intimated the petitioner to pay the 4th installment of Rs.38,835/ - after deducting the security deposit of Rs.25,790/ - within seven days, vide Annexure -2. It was also mentioned therein that no interest shall be paid on the security deposit. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a letter on 4.1.1993, vide Annexure -3, to the opposite party no.1 that there was no condition in the agreement for delayed payment of interest, but then an amount of Rs.323/ - was charged towards interest for delay in payment of 3rd installment. Thus, he is entitled to interest over the security amount. By letter dated 20.1.1993, the opposite party no.1 intimated that since the third installment was not deposited in time, interest was charged on the petitioner to pay 4th installment. Further to charge the interest over the security deposit is illegal since there was not condition in the licence.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by and dissatisfied with the order dated 25.10.2000 passed by the opposite party no.1, the petitioner filed an appeal before the opposite party no.3, which was registered as Certificate Appeal No.7 of 2000. The same was dismissed. With this factual scenario, the writ application has been filed.