SHARDA PRASAD KARANSHEEL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application, the petitioner has challenged a certified proceeding in the following facts and circumstances. He is the proprietor of a hotel running in the town of Patna and also executes catering work outside the hotel premises. According to the case made out in the writ application, a building belonging to the State Government, situate on the Gardi-ner Road (Patna), is used as Legislature Club for the benefit of the members of the Bihar Legislature. The Club is managed by a Club Committee appointed by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Committee appoints a caterer for the canteen attached to the Club for the benefit of the members of the Bihar Legislature. In 1958, the then Secretary of the Legislature Club Committee appointed the petitioner as the catering contractor of the canteen. The petitioner started the work on 1-11-1958 and continued the service till July, 1964. The petitioner has asserted that he had to supply meals at concessional rates which fact has been denied in the counter-affidavit.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner was given some space in the Club premises for running the canteen. No rent, however, was paid at any point of time. According to the petitioner's case, no rent was payable and no demand towards the same was ever made, but in the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that rent had been demanded on several occasions. In 1968 the impugned certificate proceeding was started for realisation of a sum of Rs. 42,750.54 by way of rent and damages, The authorities have taken steps under the provisions of the Bihar Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 read with the Public Demands Recovery Act,

(3.) According to the petitioner's case, there was no allotment within the meaning of the term as defined in the Act and, consequently, no rent is payable. So far as damages are concerned, it is said that there has been no assessment in accordance with law and nothing is, therefore, recoverable from the petitioner. The petitioner has further challenged the validity of the proceedings on the ground that the same do not conform to the mandatory requirements of law.