Allahabad High Court
M/S R.B.S.K. Industries Private Lim. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 8 November, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73709-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9202 of 2024
Petitioner :- M/S R.B.S.K. Industries Private Lim. Thru. Its Proprietor Sri Raj Bhawan Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Food And Civil Supplies Lko And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vyas Narayan Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the recovery certificate issued by Tehsildar, Tehsil-Gauriganj, District- Amethi for recovery of Rs.1,65,83,568.30/- i.e. dues of the Food and Civil Supplies Department. The petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition bearing No.1200 (MB) of 2016 ( M/s R.B.S.K. Industries Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of on 21.01.2016 in the following terms:-
"The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No. 35296 of 2013 dated 24.2.2014. Para 67 of the judgment, which proceeds to decide the issue is reproduced herein below:
"67. Thus, after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, and while balancing individual interest of the petitioners on one hand, and the public interest on the other hand, we consider it expedient to direct the petitioners to deposit the price of paddy/proportionate price of CMR @ Rs.1611.93 per quintal with the State Government within a period of one month from today. The petitioners will make a self calculation of the amount as per the figures of deficit CMR given in the impugned orders and deposit the same within the period stipulated above, without prejudice to their rights and contentions before the arbitrator. Amount already deposited under interim order of this Court or in pursuance of the recovery certificates issued in particular cases, shall be adjusted while calculating the amount due, to be deposited under this order. Only, on such deposit being made, all recovery proceedings and consequential action, including orders debarring/ blacklisting the millers from future hulling shall remain in abeyance. The Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies will proceed to adjudicate upon the rival claims of the parties. The State Government as well as petitioners are free to file their respective statement of claims before the Arbitrator, who shall make all endeavour to conclude the arbitration proceedings within a further period of six months, uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment. Recovery of any further sum from petitioners shall abide by the final outcome of the arbitration proceedings. Those who fail to deposit the price of paddy at the rate and within the timeframe as stipulated above, their writ-petitions will be deemed to be dismissed. In some cases, the petitioners have raised dispute regarding quantity of paddy received and / or the quantity of deficit CMR. It shall be open to those petitioners to raise such dispute also before the Arbitrator, but for making deposit of the amount as directed by this Court, the figures mentioned in the impugned orders will be assumed to be correct, failing which their writ petitions will be treated to be dismissed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a subsequent Writ Petition No. 31255 of 2014, another Division Bench of this Court while following the judgment dated 24.2.2014 has modified the order by providing the period for deposit of the amount indicated in the judgment, as two months instead of one month.
Considering the facts and circumstances as noticed above, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 24.2.2014 delivered in Writ Petition No. 35296 of 2013 with the only modification that the petitioner will have two months to deposit the amount"
According to the opposite parties, the petitioner did not submit the calculation of dues, therefore, they passed an order on 12.02.2016 asking the petitioner to deposit the due amount aforesaid which was not done, therefore, the recovery certificate has been issued.
We have perused the judgment passed on 21.01.2016 in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner which was disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 24.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.31255 of 2014. We have perused the said judgment dated 24.02.2014 also.
Apart from recovery citation which has been challenged, there is also a challenge to the order dated 12.02.2016 referred herein. On being asked to explain the delay in this regard, counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Annexure no.9 which is an order dated 25.01.2024 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.851 of 2016. He submitted that initially contempt application was filed and the said application has been decided on 25.01.2024 and thereafter this petition has been filed. However, no explanation for delay has been offered for the intervening period of ten months.
Earlier judgment has become final between the parties. The order and the recovery citation challenged therein are only consequential to the said writ petition. Moreover, the order dated 12.02.2016 was passed almost more than eight years ago, now it is sought to be challenged.
In any case, considering the facts of the case and the orders referred herein above, we see no reason to interfere in the matter at this stage in these proceedings.
The writ petition is dismissed.
.
(Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 8.11.2024
dk/
