Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2282/2001 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2282 of 2001
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
GURUMUKHSINGH
BAGGA & CO. - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
UTPAL M PANCHAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 02/12/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
petitioner was given a stall of the ownership of ST Corporation for
running a canteen on license basis for a period of 11 years. Upon
completion of the said period in the year 1983 when the Corporation
tried to reclaim possession, petitioner resisted the same.
Proceedings under the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act was undertaken. Competent Authority as
well as Civil Court in appeal held the petitioner to be unauthorised
occupant, directed his eviction and also decided to levy penalty for
his extended unauthorised use.
At
the time of admission of the matter on 1.4.2002, it was recorded
that petitioner is not interested in getting back the possession.
With respect to recovery also, though the Court refused any interim
protection but provided that such recovery will be subject to the
result of the petition.
Under
the circumstances, I have heard learned advocate for the parties on
the quantum of penalty.
Learned
counsel Shri Vyas for the petitioner submitted that even as per the
ST Corporation, highest bid received in the year 1983 was of Rs.
3500/- per month by way of license fee whereas authorities have
charged penalty at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and thereupon
calculated interest at the rate of 18% without any basis.
On
the other hand, counsel for the ST Corporation contended that
petitioner is not traceable. He has not paid any amount towards
penalty. He opposed the petition.
Having
heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the
averments on record, I am of the opinion that monthly fee of
Rs.3500/- offered by highest bidder in the year 1983 can be taken as
base for fixing penalty amount to be collected from the petitioner.
Even counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that in his
agreement with Corporation there was a clause for escalation of
license fees. Obviously, license fee agreed cannot apply in a block
period of 10 years or more. However, the terms on which highest
bidder had agreed to suffer such escalation are not on record. To
provide for a rate formula, I am of the opinion that 10% increase
per year on the license fee of Rs.3500/- would be in order. Further
considering period during which disputes arose between the parties,
interest can be charged at 12% instead of 18% in absence of any
statutory or contractual specifications.
In
the result, petition is disposed of directing the respondent to
recalculate the penalty to be levied from the petitioner.
With
above modification in the impugned order, petition is disposed of.
Rule made absolute to the above limited extent.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top