PRITAM SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash FIR No. 48 of 1989 under Section 406 IPC, Police Station South, Chandigarh.

(2.) FACTS necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the two petitioners took a contract for running different Government kilns on Government land in the Union Territory of Chandigarh on yearly basis. Terms of the contract have been given in letter of the Executive Engineer, Annexure P-1, while allotting the contract. There is no dispute that similar contract was entered into between the Executive Engineer, C.P.C. Division No. 6 and the other petitioner with regard to other brick kiln. One of the terms was that the contractor was to supply stipulated number of bricks of first class and radiated bricks of first class at specified rates to the Department. Under clause 9, there was to be no restriction in disposal of rejected bricks and the same shall be released by the Department within 45 days from date of unloading. According to clause 8, in case the accepted bricks were removed by the Contractor in an unauthorized manner, then the Department was at liberty to make the recovery at penal rates, namely double the issue rate of bricks. This was in modification of clause 27 of the notices inviting tenders. According to clause 27 reproduced in paragraph 8 of the petition, two actions were possible against the Contractor removing the bricks and tiles in unauthorised manner, namely :-

(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for both the parties. I am unable to accept the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners. In the letter of allotment of contract, Annexure P-1, the brick-kilns in question were described as departmental kilns. Admittedly, the land on which the brick-kilns are situate, belongs to the Government. According to paragraph 7 of the petition itself, bricks are manufactured at the brick kilns under supervision and control of the officials of the Department. Paragraph 7 deserves to be reproduced in extenso. It reads :-