Parasnath Pandey vs Uttarakhand Forest Development ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 589 UK

        THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                            Writ Petition (S/S) No. 643 of 2019


Parasnath Pandey                                                       ....... Petitioner

                                                          Vs.

Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation & others
                                                  ......Respondents


Present: Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the respondents.




                                                      Judgment

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount of

Rs.1,14,400/- which has been illegally seized by the respondents.

(ii) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus directing the respondents to grant interest @ 9% per

annum on the amount illegally recovered from the petitioner.

(iii) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction

which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the

petitioner and against the respondents."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that under official directions

he got a work executed through labourers, for which he incurred

Rs.1,14,400/-/. The amount was paid to the labourers. Subsequently

the department cancelled all the orders of the work, which had already

been executed and started recovering the amount already paid to the

labourers. Instant petition has been filed for the recovery of the amount

deposited with the department as well as related reliefs.

3. On behalf of the respondents, despite opportunity, counter

affidavit has not been filed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

5. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that a similar controversy has already been decided by

this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1867 of 2016 on 17.04.2017, the

judgment of which has been confirmed in Special Appeal No. 556 of

2017 and connected appeal by this Court on 16.08.2018.

6. During the course of argument, on behalf of the petitioner,

it is also argued that departmental proceedings were initiated against

the petitioner, in which he has already been exonerated.

7. The Court requested the learned counsel for the

respondents to inform the Court as to what is the stand of the

department. After seeking instructions, the learned counsel for the

respondents would submit that the concerned officer has informed her

that the amount claimed by the petitioner shall be released in his

favour.

8. The statement given by the learned counsel for the

respondents is taken on record.

9. Perusal of the judgment dated 17.04.2017 passed in

WPSS No. 1867 of 2016 (Annexure No. 11) reveals that, in fact, a

similar controversy has already been decided by the Court, and in that

case, the amount deposited by the petitioner of the case was directed to

be released in his favour along with the interest at the rate of 9 per cent

per annum.

10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case

and also keeping in view that a similar controversy has already been

decided by the Court, this Court is of the view that the petition

deserves to be allowed.

11. The writ petition is allowed.

12. The respondents are directed to release Rs.1,14,400/- in

favour of the petitioner along with the interest at the rate of 9 per cent

per annum.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.03.2021 AR/