Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39963 of 2010 Petitioner :- Auto Rickshaw Chalak Welfare Society Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Anurodh Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Punit Khare Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon’ble Virendra Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Punit Khare for respondent no. 2.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated
09.06.2010 passed by Nagar Aayukt, Nagar Nigam by which the petitioner has
been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 28,70,200/- in the Nagar Nigam within 15
days. The petitioner which is a society namely Auto Rickshaw Chalak Welfare
Society has undertaken to realise and pay the stand fees to Nagar Niga, Moradabad
@ Rs. 10 per day per auto rickshaw. A demand of Rs. 29,95,200/- was calculated
and a letter was issued to the petitioner dated 30.12.2009 for deposit of the said
amount. The petitioner challenged the order and filed WP No. 23212/2010. The
petitioner’s case was that the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 7.11 lakhs,
but the benefit of the entire amount has not been given. This court disposed of the
writ petition on 28.04.2010 by the following order:-
“The petitioner is a society of the Auto Riksha Chalak. It appears that the petitioner has under
taken to realise and pay parking fee to Nagar Nigam, Moradabad @ Rs. 10/- per day per auto
rickshaw. It appears that there were 832 auto rickshaws and, therefore, the demand of Rs.
29,95,200/- has been calculated towards parking fee recoverable from the petitioner. As per letter
dated 30.12.2009 a sum of Rs. 2.19 lacs has been deposited by the petitioner on 21.12.2009 and
demand for the balance amount has been raised.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 7.11
lacs but the benefit of the entire amount already deposited have not been given. He further
submitted that the petitioner has not been provided the proper place for parking and in this
respect a representaiton has been filed before the respondent no. 2, Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam,
Moradabad, annexure-12 to the writ petition.
We do not see any error in the calculation of demand of Rs. Rs. 29,95,200/- raised by the
respondent. However, the petitioner is entitled for the adjustment of the amount of Rs. 7.11 lacs,
in case, if the petitioner is able to furnish the receipts of the deposit of the said amount in the
circumstances, we direct the respondent, Tax Superintendent, Nagar Nigam, Moradabad to give
the adjustment of the amount already deposited by the petitioner, in case, if the petitioner gives
the necessary evidences for the deposit of the amount. The respondent no. 2, Nagar Ayukt, Nagar
Nigam, Moradabad is further directed to consider the representation of the petitioner
expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of the
certified copy of this order. it is made clear that we have not adjudicated the merit of the
representation of the petitioner in the present writ petition.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stand disposed of.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.06.2010 which
has been passed in pursuance of the direction of this court dated 28.04.2010
submitted that there was no liability of the petitioner to deposit the said amount. He
further denied the liability of the petitioner of Rs. 29 lakhs as assessed on
30.12.2009.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are
of the view that the scope of the present writ petition is only to the extent as to
whether the order passed by this court dated 28.04.2010 has been correctly
considered or complied with by the Nagar Nigam. The only direction which this
Court gave to the Nagar Nigam was to adjust the amount with regard to which
receipt is furnished by the petitioner of the deposit in the Nagar Nigam. The Nagar
NIgam after the said order accepted certain receipt of Rs. 2,19,000/- towards the
parking fees (earlier named as ‘stand fees’), hence by giving deduction of Rs.
2,19,000/-, an amount of Rs. 27,76,200/- has been arrived at.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not challenged the calculation as made
by the Nagar Nigam by the impugned order dated 09.06.2010. Rather, he submitted
that entire recovery is illegal.
We are afraid that we cannot sit in appeal over the earlier judgement of this court
dated 28.04.2010 where this court found the demand of Rs. 29,95,200/- as correct.
The scope of this writ petition is only to look into the order dated 09.06.2010 and
not to re-adjudicate the demand of Rs. 29,95,200/- which was the subject matter in
the earlier writ petition. In view of the aforesaid the petitioner is not entitled for
any relief as prayed for in this writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
Order Date :- 21.7.2010
Jaideep/-