Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19391 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mukhtyar @ Mukhtar Hussain Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shahid Ali Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard Sri Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that in the first round of litigation the petitioner had also been extended certain benefits and therefore the issuance of the recovery once again by the respondent, is not justified.
We have considered the submissions raised and what we find is that Writ C No.3079 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner that was disposed of on 31.08.2012 by the following order :
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.M. Asthana appearing for respondent no. 4.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the recovery certificate dated 1.11.2010 issued by Assistant Director, Hathkargha and Vastra Udyog, Bareilly Division Bareilly to the Collector for recovery of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the petitioner. Petitioner was granted Rs. 1,61,000/- in the year 2004 for training and expansion expenditure of project under the Deen Dayal Handloom Encouragement Scheme which was sponsored scheme for weavers. The recovery certificate has been issued on the ground that petitioner has not complied the terms and conditions under which the same was granted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has complied the terms and conditions and has also submitted the utilization certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar writ petition raising similar issues were entertained and disposed of by this court. Reference has been made as writ petition no. 6294 of 2011 Shamsad Hussain Vs. State of U.P. and Others which was disposed of on 4.2.2011 permitting the petitioner to submit a detailed representation along with all relevant documents including details of utilization before the Assistant Director, Hathkargha and Vastra Udyog, who was directed to consider the same. The relevant operative portion of the order passed on 4.2.2011 is to the following effect:-
"In view of the reasons given in order dated 1.2.2011, this writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms and the same direction. i.e., the petitioner may submits details of expenditure to the respondent no. 2, Assistant Director, Hathkargha and Vastra Udyog, bareilly Range, Rareilly within four weeks from today, who has sent recovery certificate to the Collector, giving details of his claim, details of the utilazation of the amount already sanctioned which will be examined by respondent no. 2 and, if necessary, an inquiry report may also be obtained by the competent authority. The Assistant Director shall consider the claim of the petitioner and therafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Till the decision is taken by the respondent no. 2, Assistant Director, Hathkargha and Vastra Udyog, Bareilly Range, Rareilly, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the recovery certificate. However, after decision is taken by respondent no. 2, a fresh recovery certificate, if necessary, may be issued and appropriate action be taken in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the ends of justice be served in disposing of this writ petition with same directions:
The writ petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in 6294 of 2011.
The petitioner may submit the detailed representation along with the relevant documents within a period of four weeks from today to the Assistant Director who shall consider the some and take a decision in accordance with law.
Till the decision is taken by the respondent no. 2, Assistant Director, Hathkargha and Vastra Udyog, Bareilly Range, Bareilly, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the recovery certificate. However, after decision is taken by respondent no. 2, a fresh recovery certificate, if necessary, may be issued and appropriate action be taken in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly."
Learned counsel submits that as a matter of fact the respondents instead of trying to allow the petitioner to clear of the dues, have proceeded to issue a fresh recovery certificate.
Another bunch of writ petitions being Writ C No.2632 of 2011 were filed that were decided the judgment whereof has been relied up on by the learned counsel for the petitioner indicates the same line of reasoning as given in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this will not amount to a second writ petition as the petitioner has been able to create a new cause of action. We are unable to appreciate this submission inasmuch as the cause of action remains the same it is only the consequential recovery which has been rejuvenate afresh. We are therefore not inclined to entertain the writ petition without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach the Director for any such redressal that may be available in law. The writ petition is consigned to records.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 R./