Uttarakhand High Court
8Th September vs Nagar Palika Parishad on 18 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 239 OF 2023
18TH SEPTEMBER, 2023
Rajendra Prasad Bangwal .....Petitioner.
Versus
Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie & another ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned
Standing Counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The present order be read as in continuation of our
order dated 06.09.2023. In pursuance of the said order, a
compliance affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2.
Paragraph No.4 of the said affidavit reads as follows:-
"4. That incompliance of the order dated 06.09.2023
respondents are submitting that the Nagar Palika Parishad
Mussoorie had issued letter no.4077/AA/202-23 dated
16.02.2023 and office letter no.4274/AA/2022-23 whereby
directed to the petitioner to deposit Rs.64,44,077/-. The
petitioner in continuation of it deposited entire demanded
money in Nagar Palika Parishad Mussoorie. Furthermore,
submits that enquiry is still going on at Urban Development
Directorate, hence no demand notice of any kind was sent to
the petitioner by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie till the
investigation was completed. The petitioner himself submitted
cheque no.002817 on 19-08-2023 of Rs.27,49,562/- in the
office of Nagar Palika Parishad Mussoorie, which has received
on basis by Nagar Palika that till final outcome of the enquiry
of directorate the said money will not consider as final
liability, therefore till then the said money will deposit in
treasury of Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie. (Annexure no.6
& 7 of the writ petition)".
2. From the above, it would be seen that the
respondents appear to have undertaken some internal inquiry
of their own without the involvement of the petitioner, and on
that basis, appear to have arrived at some unilateral
conclusion, that the respondents have suffered financial loss
towards the ropeway charges, when the petitioner was
serving as the contractor for collection of ropeway fee. The
respondents have not quantified the alleged financial loss
caused to the respondents in the aforesaid paragraph.
However, Annexure-8 of the writ petition shows that the
respondents are claiming that an amount of Rs.405.02 lakh
has been computed, as the alleged financial loss suffered by
the respondents.
3. Pertinently, no demand in respect of the alleged
loss has been issued to the petitioner. Since there is no such
demand, there is no question of their being any due against
the petitioner, due to the aforesaid alleged financial loss.
4. Consequently, we allow this petition.
5. The petitioner has already been permitted by us to
participate in the tender in question, even though, the
petitioner had not been issued the No Dues certificate.
6. From a perusal of the aforesaid extract from the
compliance affidavit of respondent no.2, it is evident that
actually, the petitioner had paid the dues on account of the
ropeway charges, and there was no default of the petitioner
in respect of the ropeway charges payable by it. The
petitioner was, therefore, wrongly denied the No Dues
certificate. We, therefore, direct the respondents to proceed
to consider the bid of the petitioner in respect of the tender,
in question.
7. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 18th September, 2023
NISHANT
