Uttarakhand High Court
Kudrat Security Services Through vs Uttarakhand Housing And Urban on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.215 OF 2022
06TH JULY, 2022
Between:
Kudrat Security Services through
its sole proprietor ......Appellant
Vs.
Uttarakhand Housing and Urban
Development and Others ......Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Shri Vikas Bahuguna.
Counsel for respondent no. 1 : Shri Rahul Consul.
Counsel for the State : Shri Mohit Maulekhi, learned
Standing Counsel for the
State/respondent nos. 2 and 3.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice)
Issue notice.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents appears
and accepts notices.
3. The present special appeal is directed against
the judgment dated 24.06.2022, passed by learned Single
Judge, in the writ petition preferred by the appellant
being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1421 of 2022. The said writ
petition had been preferred by the appellant, who assailed
the letter dated 02.03.2022 issued by respondent no. 1
i.e., Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development
Authority to recover the amount, which was claimed to be
due from the petitioner/appellant, under the contract
executed between the parties for running, operating and
parking at Rajeev Gandhi Mutlipurpose Complex,
Dehradun, in respect whereof, the agreement was
executed, on 19.12.2015 for a period of five years i.e.,
from 01.03.2016 to 28.02.2021.
4. The submission of the appellant/writ-petitioner
before the learned Single Judge was that Clause 10 of the
Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the
parties contained an arbitration agreement and that
respondent no.1 could not seek to make recovery from
the appellant without there being a judicial adjudication of
its claim.
5. The appellant contended that respondent no.1
was not a Corporation as defined in Section 2 (A) of the
U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of the Dues) Act, 1972, and
therefore, he could not make recovery of the amount by
resorting to the process prescribed under the said Act.
6. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that
the learned Single Judge did not record any finding that
respondent no.1 is a Corporation within the meaning of
the aforesaid Act, yet the learned Single Judge declined in
favour of the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition.
7. We have head learned counsels and we are of
the view that the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained, since respondent no.1 is not a Corporation as
defined under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of the
Dues) Act, 1972. He could not have sought to make
recovery by mere issuance of a letter.
2
8. Since the respondent has a claim against the
appellant under the agreements/MoU entered into
between the parties, the only course open to the
respondent was to resort to the adjudicatory process.
9. We therefore, set aside the impugned judgment
and leave it to the parties to pursue their respective
claims/counter-claims, in accordance with law. We further
quash the impugned communication dated 02.03.2022
issued by respondent no.1, seeking to make recovery
against him. We however make it clear that we have not
examined the merits of the case of either party.
___________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
______________________________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 06th July, 2022
SK/RB
