Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31687 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Pashu Shav Chhedan Evam Charm Shodhan Audhyodik Utpadan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Shri Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Atul Tej Kulsheshtra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and perused the record.
2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.07.2019 which has been passed in compliance to the Government Order dated 31.08.2018 which has been issued for the purposes of determination of royalty in cases of contract of work for disposal of hides, bones and carcasses of the dead animals.
3. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 05.07.2019 is in teeth of the Government Order dated 31.08.2019 and has been issued completely misinterpreting the provision as has come to be amended replacing the old one under the said Government Order. He submits further that acting upon the order dated 05.07.2019, he has been directed vide order dated 09.07.2019 to deposit royalty amount of Rs.33,000/- and odd, which according to the petitioner is not sustainable in law.
4. We have carefully examined the Government Order dated 31.08.2018 and also the consequential compliance order dated 05.07.2019 brought on record as Annexures 5 and 12 to the writ petition. From the perusal and bare reading of the Government Order dated 31.08.2018, it is clearly borne out that for the purposes of fixation of royalty the average of the income from the last three years have been taken into account. However, if the last year's income to say the year in which the income has been obtained, is higher then that income will be taken as a determinative factor for the purposes of fixing royalty. It has been further provided in the Government Order that the royalty will be fixed with additional 10% increase every year.
5. A bare reading of the order dated 05.07.2019 also reveals that it is nothing but a consequential direction pursuant to the said Government Order. In the order dated 05.07.2019 it is clearly provided that the average income from the last three years will be taken into account and for this purposes the year in which the income has not been obtained, shall not be taken into account.
6. In our considered opinion, the interpretation as has been sought to be made by learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of Government Order and consequential order cannot be accepted because the determinative factor is the "income" of a particular year or average of those very previous three years in which the income has been obtained. The word "income" in Devanagari Script as "आय" occurring under the Government Order needs to be given emphasis and, therefore, in our considered opinion, there is no misinterpretation of the amended provision in the order dated 05.07.2019, if it has clarified that only those years will be taken into account in which the income had been obtained and the year in which no income has been obtained prior to the year in which the royalty has to be determined, will not be taken into account.
7. In such above view of the matter, therefore, we do not find any error much less substantial one to warrant any interference in the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh and, hence, we do not find any error or arbitrariness in the order dated 09.07.2019 directing the petitioner to make deposit of royalty for the financial year 2019-2020 and, therefore, the writ petition to that extent stands dismissed.
8. However, another prayer has been made in the writ petition and that is to the effect that the respondents are not taking any final action pursuant to the notice inviting tender dated 31.07.2019. A perusal of the notice dated 31.05.2019 clearly reveals that the tender was liable to be opened on 26.07.2019 but we do not find any such fact coming in the pleadings as to what happened on 26.07.2019 and, therefore, if any further step has been taken, the petitioner should have come clearly stating the said fact. It appears that tender proceedings have yet not been finalized and process is underway. We do not think any cause of action has yet arisen to maintain this writ petition as far as prayer "C" is concerned and it is always open for the petitioner to agitate the issue at an appropriate forum if tender is finalized and he has any grievance regarding that.
9. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed and consigned to records.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Nitin Verma (Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)