Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19811 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S K.D.P. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey,Rohit Nandan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and perused the record.
Considering the nature of order that we propose to pass, we do not consider it necessary to invite counter affidavit from the respondents No. 1 to 3 or from the respondent No. 4. Therefore, with the consent of learned Standing Counsel, this petition is being disposed off finally at this stage itself.
According to the petitioner, certain proceedings were drawn before the State Consumer Forum at Lucknow against the petitioner in which certain damages were awarded against the petitioner. Challenging the orders passed by the State Consumer Forum, writ petition Nos. 16358 of 2019; 16353 of 2019; and 15844 of 2019 were filed in which the jurisdiction of the State Consumer Forum was questioned on the ground that valuation of claim was below Rs. 20 lacs; upon which, interim orders were passed by the writ court which have been collectively appended as Annexure – 2 to the petition.
It has been submitted that despite interim order, attachment of the account of petitioner has been directed by the Up-Ziladhikari, Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar vide impugned letter dated 08.05.2019.
From the letter dated 08.05.2019 issued by the Up-Ziladhkari, Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar to the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Jagar Farm, Gama – 1, Greater NOIDA, it appears that an amount of Rs. 66,50,705/- is due against the petitioner. It is not clear from the letter dated 08.05.2019 whether the amount of Rs. 66,50,705/- is the collective amount payable under multiple orders of the State Consumer Forum or it is a separate amount payable under any particular order of the State Consumer Forum.
A perusal of the interim orders passed in Writ – C Nos. 16358 of 2019; 16353 of 2019; and 15844 of 2019 would reveal that aforesaid petitions were entertained on the ground that the State Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain a claim exceeding Rs. 20 lacs up to Rs. 1 crore. Whereas the claims raised before it were below that amount and therefore, the State Consumer Forum lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition/complaint.
The impugned letter of Up-Ziladhikari, which is appended as Annexure – 3 at page – 36 of the Paper Book, apparently, was issued prior to the passing of the interim order in the aforesaid writ petitions and it discloses an amount which is higher than Rs. 20 lacs.
Under the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to demonstrate to the second respondent (Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar) that pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court in Writ – C Nos. 16358 of 2019; 16353 of 2019; and 15844 of 2019, the recovery proceedings are not liable to continue till such interim order operates. To demonstrate as above, the petitioner would have to produce all the necessary documents to show that Rs. 66,50,705/- sought to be recovered from the petitioner is the cumulative amount of which recovery has been stayed by this Court.
It is expected that if any such representation is made by the petitioner before the Collector, District Gautam Budh Nagar (second respondent), he shall call for a report from the Up-Ziladhikari, Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar to assess whether the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner under the letter dated 08.05.2019 is the same amount of which recovery has been stayed by this Court in Writ – C Nos. 16358 of 2019; 16353 of 2019; and 15844 of 2019 or not.
In case it is found that the amount sought to be recovered is subjudice in the aforesaid writ petitions, then, he shall abide by the interim orders passed by this Court and issue directions accordingly. However, in case it is found that the aforesaid amount sought to be recovered, is not relateable to the aforesaid petitions, he shall proceed to bring the recovery proceeding to its logical conclusion in accordance with law unless there is any other legal impediment in doing so.
The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 4.6.2019 LBY