Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1043/2015 on 12 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1043 of 2015
BETWEEN:
Kuwar Pal .....Petitioner
(Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate i/b Mr. Desh Raj Singh, Advocate)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others. .....Respondents
(Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Addl. C.S.C. for State/respondent nos.2 and 3)
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. A contract was executed between the
petitioner and Uttarakhand Livestock Development
Board (respondent no.1 herein) on 29.07.2004 for
running an Artificial Insemination Centre. The said
contract was subsequently cancelled, vide order
dated 27.03.2015, which has been challenged in the
present writ petition. The reason assigned for
cancelling the contract is that the petitioner has
violated Clause 10 of the contract. Clause 10 of the
contract provided that the petitioner will provide only
such services from his Artificial Insemination Centre
which are permissible under the Veterinary Council
Act. It is stated in the impugned order that the
petitioner had unauthorizedly provided other services
in his Centre, which are not permissible under the
Veterinary Council Act.
3. A short counter affidavit has been filed by
Dr. M.S. Nayal, Chief Executive Officer, U.L.D.B.,
Dehradun. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the said affidavit
are reproduced below:-
"6. That it was categorically stipulated in Clause 10
of the agreement dated 29.07.2004 that only such
services shall be provided by the Artificial
Insemination Centre (A.I.C.), which are
prescribed/permitted by the Indian Veterinary
Council Act, 1984. The said Clause further provided
that in the event of any act in contravention to the
terms of the agreement would automatically lead to
termination of the contract for which the petitioner
shall be solely responsible.
7. That on receiving several complaints against the
present petitioner an enquiry was directed by
Director Animal Husbandry, Uttarakhand vide letter
no.4532 dated 30.01.2015. An enquiry in terms of
the directions of the Chief Veterinary Officer,
Haridwar was conducted, which submitted its report
dated 04.03.2015. It was categorical finding by the
enquiry committee that the petitioner had been
violating not only the terms of the contract dated
29.07.2004, specifically Clause 10, of the said
agreement but also was in violation of Section 30 of
the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984.
8. That it is also pertinent to mention here that it is
the admitted position of the petitioner that he had
been administering injection and also conducting
surgeries of animals, which was in total violation of
the agreement as also the Indian Veterinary Council
Act, 1984."
4. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed in the
matter, although counter affidavit was served upon
the petitioner's counsel in the month of December
2019. In such view of the matter, in the absence of
any rejoinder affidavit, this Court has no other option
but to treat the averments made in the counter
affidavit, as correct.
5. Since the petitioner has violated Clause 10
of the contract and has done certain things which
were not permissible, therefore, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the impugned order,
terminating the contract.
6. In such view of the matter, writ petition
fails and is hereby dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Rajni
