Birendra Singh Bisht vs Kumaon Mandal Vikash Nigam
2023 Latest Caselaw 3068 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2867 of 2023


Birendra Singh Bisht                                     ...Petitioner

                               Versus

Kumaon Mandal Vikash Nigam
and others                                           ...Respondents


Present:-
            Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the respondent
            no.1.
            Mr. K.K. Shah, Additional C.S.C. for the
            State/respondent nos. 2 and 3.


                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of instant petition, the petitioner

seeks the following reliefs:-

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

nature of certiorari quashing the

order/letter dated 2-09-2023 issued by

Tehsildar Haldwani, District Nainital,

annexed as Annexure 8 to this petition.

(ii) Issue any suitable order or direction of

any nature which this Hon'ble Court may

deep fit and proper.

(iii) Award the cost of the writ petition in

favour of the petitioner."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The petitioner is tenant of the premises

owned by the respondent no.1 Kumaon Mandal Vikash

Nigam ("the KMVN"). The KMVN sent a communication

dated 02.02.2023 for recovery of Rs. 1,56,69,695.00/-

from the petitioner to the Collector, Nainital. This

communication was marked as RC 66/22-23. to

respondent no.3 Tehsildar, Haldwani. On 02.09.2023,

the respondent no.3, Tehsildar, Haldwani made a

communication to the Bank seeking account details of

the petitioner and in that communication, the petitioner

has been termed as defaulter. This communication

dated 02.09.2023 of the respondent no.3, Tehsildar is

impugned herein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner and the respondent no.1 the

KMVN had a contractual obligation; they entered into a

lease deed; the petitioner is the tenant of the premises

owned by the respondent no.1 the KMVN. Therefore, for

arrears, if any, recovery citation could not have been

issued. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioner filed a

Civil Suit No. 87 of 2022, Birendra Singh Bisht Vs.

Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam ("the Suit") in the court of

Civil Judge, Haldwani for setting aside the

communication dated 02.02.2023 made by the

respondent no.1 the KMVN to the Collector, Nainital.

The suit proceeded exparte, but subsequently, the

respondent no.1 the KMVN appeared and exparte

proceedings order has been recalled. It is argued that

in between the impugned communication was made,

which is bad in the eyes of law.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel

would submit that the writ petition itself in not

maintainable. He would submit that since the

respondent no.3 the Tehsildar had received a recovery

citation, he sought information from the bank terming

the petitioner as a defaulter. He would submit that

nothing is wrong in it.

6. Learned counsel for the State would further

submit that by the communication dated 02.09.2023,

the respondent no.3, the Tehsildar has simply sought

an information. It is a kind of inquiry only.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1, the

KMVN would submit that the KMVN is a Government

company. The petitioner has to make his dues good.

Therefore, recovery as arrears of land revenue can be

made.

8. The petitioner has already challenged the

communication dated 02.02.2023 made by the

respondent No.1 the KMVN to the Collector, Nainital for

recovery of arrears. This communication is marked to

the respondent no.3 the Tehsildar for recovery. If the

respondent no.3 the Tehsildar, pursuant to directions

issued to him, collected information, how can it be

faulted with? The respondent no.3 Tehsildar received a

communication for recovery of certain dues from the

petitioner. He termed the petitioner as defaulter and

sought an information from the Bank. The respondent

no.3 Tehsildar has not done anything on his own.

9. Moreover, the petitioner himself has filed a

suit for setting aside communication dated 02.02.2023.

In the suit itself, the petitioner could seek prayer qua

impugned communication. But in the instant petition,

under the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the view that no indulgence of this Court is

required.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner would press for interim relief

application in the suit, but a direction may be issued

that it may be decided in a time bound manner.

11. On it, learned counsel for the respondent

no.1, the KMVN would submit that the date fixed for

hearing of the suit is 19.10.2023. He would submit that

the respondent no.1, the KMVN would argue the matter

on the interim relief application on that date. Learned

counsel for the petitioner would also agree to it that

temporary injunction application may be heard on

19.10.2023.

12. The statements given by the petitioner and

the respondent no.1 the KMVN for hearing of temporary

injunction application in the suit on 19.10.2023 is

taken on record.

13. In view of it, the Court is of the view that

there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the

petition deserves to be dismissed.

14. The petition is dismissed with the

observations as made hereinbefore.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.10.2023 Jitendra