Allahabad High Court
M/S Saraswati Steel And Alloys ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 August, 2022
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10939 of 2022
Petitioner :- M/S Saraswati Steel And Alloys Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Keshawa Prasad Pandey,Krishna Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
A copy of written instructions shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The petitioner herein seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to remit the amount of Rs. 4.18 lakhs deposited by the petitioner towards recovery charges, with the respondent no 3 namely, the Paradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. (PICUP).
In the written instructions supplied by the learned Standing Counsel, a categorical stand has been taken by the District Magistrate and other Officers of the Revenue that in compliance of the order dated 11.07.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 20124 of 2003, the representation dated 04.09.2002 submitted by the petitioner had been disposed of and the amount of Rs. 4.18 lakhs deposited in the Revenue Department had been refunded back to the PICUP by a Draft dated 05.02.2014 which had been encashed on 13.02.2014.
The contention, thus, is that no cause of action survives with the petitioner herein to seek a writ as prayed for. Alongwith the written instructions, the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar on the representation dated 04.09.2002 passed by the petitioner has also been placed on record. A perusal thereof indicates that while deciding the representation filed by the petitioner, it was noted by the District Magistrate that since the recovery certificate was returned back to the PICUP on account of a compromise arrived between the petitioner and the Corporation, the recovery certificate dated 21.08.2002 was returned back to the PICUP and the said fact was evident from the report dated 25.09.2013 submitted by the Tehsildar-Sadar.
Pursuant to the return of the recovery certificate, amount of Rs. 4.18 lakhs towards the recovery charges deposited by the petitioner was also directed to be refunded back to the Corporation by a Bank Draft, to be prepared in its name.
It is, thus, evident that the issue raised by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar has been brought to its logical end and the directions issued by this Court in the judgment and order dated 11.07.2011 passed in the earlier round of litigation drawn by the petitioner, has been complied with.
The recovery charges to the tune of Rs. 4.18 lakhs, thus, lies with respondent no. 3-Corporation. It may be noted that though the Corporation namely, PICUP is impleaded in the present petition and a notice has been sent to respondent no. 3 through speed post but no one has put in appearance on its behalf.
Having noticed the stand taken by the District Magistrate in the written instruction supplied today, we do not find any good reason to keep the writ petition pending. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall move an application before the competent officers of the Corporation namely, the Paradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. (PICUP) alongwith the copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. On presentation of the copy of this order, the respondent no. 3 shall be under obligation to refund the recovery charges to the tune of Rs. 4.18 lakhs refunded to the PICUP from the Office of the District Magistrate through the Draft dated 05.02.2014. The refund shall be made by respondent no. 3 preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the application of the petitioner.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.8.2022
Vik/-
