The single judge bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Harsh Mann Vs Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. and others held that once the petitioner has raised the grievances before the Authority concerned, the concerned Authority is under legal obligation to redress the grievances in accordance with law.
Brief Facts of the Case
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into a lease agreement for a period of 5 years for the operation of a tourist accommodation house at the annual rent of Rs. 2,32,000/- and Security of Rs. 57,500/- and GST at the rate of 18%. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed in order to directing the respondent no. 4 to not take any coercive measures/steps against the petitioner for recovery of alleged amount of Rs. 11,34,232/-.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that according to the lease agreement, the petitioner duly paid the rent for the month of may and continued to operate the guest house. However, because of the cloud burst / natural calamity in Village Van, the road and the bridge got washed away and due to which all the transportation got affected which also restricted the movements of tourists and due to which he could not run the guest-house and there was no profit, due to which he could not pay the rent.
Observations of the Court
The High Court observed that as soon as the petitioner brings up the concerns with the relevant Authority, the Authority is legally obligated to address the grievances in compliance with the law.
It was furthermore observed that the guest home was undoubtedly leased by the petitioner from the respondent Department, and if a natural disaster had prevented the guest house from operating, the respondent Department ought to have given the petitioner's situation careful consideration.
It was noted that the counsel on behalf of the Petitioner stated that after receiving instructions from his client, who is present in court, the petitioner is willing to pay Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rs. Six Lacs Only) in one month. However, he also requested that the respondent Department be directed to sympathetically consider the fact that the guest house was unable to operate due to a natural disaster and reduce the amount owed for rent and the respondent agreed to it.
The Decision of the Court
The High Court, taking into account the guest-house's inability to operate since July 2018 due to a natural calamity, instructed the respondent to decide in accordance with the law the amount of rent the petitioner must deposit. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 6,00,000 within one month of receiving this order.
Case Title: Harsh Mann vs. Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
Case No.: Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3108 of 2023
Advocates for the Petitioner: Kaushal Pandey and Harshvardhan Dhanik
Advocates for the Respondent: Sandeep Kothari and V.D. Bisen
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :