ROSHAN LAL SETHI Vs. TEHSILDAR, RAJOURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for issue of a writ of certiorari praying the court to quash the order of respondent No. 1 dated 7 -10 -1969/ 24 -11 -1969.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that the petitioner, who is a resi ­dent of Rajouri, was appointed a contractor to collect DHARAT in the Notified Area Committee of Rajouri from 31 -3 -1965 to 30 -3 -1966. The total amount of contract money payable was filed at Rs. 62100/ -. The petitioner alleged that he had made part payments of Rs. 35525/ - and the balance of Rs. 26575 was payable by him. He further alleged that due to Indo -Pak conflict in 1965 and large scale infiltrations in the Poonch -Rajouri District his business suffered a big set back as about 90 percent of population of Rajouri Tehsil migrated to the other side of the cease -fire line so he could not pay the balance amount. He also alleged that he represented to the Notified Area Committee about his loss and the difficulties. Pursuant to those representations the Notified Area Committee passed a resolution on 29 -1 -1966 and recommended to the Government that a remission of Rs. 20,000/ - should be granted in favour of the petitioner. This recommendation, according to the petitioner, was supported by the then Director Local Bodies, Shri S. L. Koul. Accord ­ing to the petitioner the Government also got a further probe made in the matter and the Secretary to Government, Health Department (Incharge Local Bodies) had also declared that the petitioner had suffered losses in DHARAT realisation due to abnormal conditions prevailing in 1965 and held the petitioner to be entitled to a remission of Rs. 20,000/ -The details of the present grievance are given by the petitioner in paras Nos. - 7 and 8 of the petition wherein he has alleged that in spite of the above said recommendation and declaration of entitlement of the petitioner to a remission of Rs. 20,000/ -, respondent No. 2 had issued a certificate to respondent No. 1 to recover a sum of Rs. 26575/ - as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner also alleged that the impugned order is passed in violation of the Fundamental Rights in as much as that the peti ­tioner has been discriminated in the matter of grant of remission whereas a remission in similar circumstances was granted to the DHARAT con ­tractor by the Town Area Committee Ranbir Singh Pura and respondent No. 2 has not treated him in the same manner as the Ranbir Singh Pura contractor was treated. Two farther objections are also raised under the heading "ground". The first being that under section 101 of the Municipal Act the recovery of DHARAT tax could only be effected by the machinery under the said Act and the same could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue - Secondly, that the amount of tax was barred by limitation and realisation of an amount which is not legally recovered cannot be effected as arrears of land revenue.

(3.) IN reply to this petition, objections have been filed by respon ­dents Nos. 1 and 3 through Mr. Amar Chand, Additional Advocate General, and respondent No. 2 through Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate. An affidavit of Shri Chuni Lal Sharma, Secretary of the Notified Area Committee, Rajuori, has also been placed on record. These objections and affidavit are identical in nature and raise three preliminary objections : Firstly that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner ; secondly, that as the amount pertains to contract the writ petition is not maintainable and thirdly that the petition does not involve any legal or constitutional point. On facts, these objections alleged that the facts which are alleged by the petitioner in order to show that he suffered a loss were not correct and in fact the business at Rajouri had not at all been effected. It is further alleged that the resolution passed by the Noti ­fied Area Committee was against facts as it was found to be so when a probe into the allegations were made by the Deputy Director Local Bodies who came to the conclusion that the business had not at all been effected. As such the representation of the petitioner and the recommen ­dation of the Committee were rightly rejected. As for as the grant of re ­mission to the DHARAT contractor was concerned, it was submitted by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 that the circumstances were very different in R. S. Pura because the Army had got the whole town vacated during the conflict and the business had come to a dead stop. The position in both the cases being factually different, the question of discrimination did not arise. As regards the recovery proceedings, respondent No. 2 specifically alleged that he had authorised respondent No. 1 to recover the amount due from the petitioner. Whether the recovery could be made as arrears of land revenue or not, the respondents simply said that respondent No. 1 has powers to recover as arrears of and revenue by attachment and sale of the property of the petitioner. The applicability of Article 86 of the Limitation Act was also denied.