Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 17: Holding that Government authorities cannot be made to suffer financial losses merely because a litigant continued to occupy public property under the protection of an interim court order, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition challenging the recovery of Rs 6.55 lakh towards outstanding rent for a hospital canteen at Bhaderwah.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary, while dismissing the petition filed by Ghulam Hassan, a resident of Puneja, Bhaderwah, observed that a litigant cannot take a contradictory stand after having enjoyed the benefit of an interim court order for more than a decade.
The petitioner had challenged a notice dated July 19, 2023, issued by the Block Medical Officer (BMO), Bhaderwah, directing him to deposit Rs 6,55,500 and vacate the canteen premises at Sub-District Hospital, Dandi Bhaderwah, within two weeks.
The controversy originated in 2013 when the Health Department invited tenders for allotment of a canteen at the newly established Sub-District Hospital, Dandi Bhaderwah. The petitioner, despite emerging as the highest bidder, was disqualified for failing to affix a revenue stamp of Rs 5 on his tender document.
The authorities subsequently approved the bid of another participant who had quoted Rs 51,000. Aggrieved by the rejection of his bid, the petitioner approached the High Court in 2013 and secured an interim order directing maintenance of status quo regarding the canteen premises.
However, the earlier petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on December 23, 2021, following which the authorities initiated proceedings for recovery of outstanding dues and vacation of the premises.
Challenging the recovery notice, the petitioner contended that the canteen had actually been allotted to his son, Shahid Hussan, in 2012 at a monthly rent of Rs 300, subject to an annual increase of 10 percent, and that he could not be held personally liable for payment of the amount demanded by the department.
During the hearing, Advocate Nitin Verma appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma, assisted by Advocate Jagmeet Kour, represented the Government.
The Government submitted that the petitioner had continued occupying the canteen premises under the protection of the interim court order without depositing the amount quoted in his tender bid, thereby causing financial loss to the State exchequer.
After examining the record, the High Court found that the petitioner had specifically admitted in his earlier writ petition that he was running the canteen along with his son and had claimed entitlement to its allotment as the highest bidder.
Rejecting his subsequent contention that only his son was occupying the premises, the Court observed, “It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner now to take a U-turn,” particularly when his earlier admission was contrary to his present stand.
Justice Chowdhary observed that the petitioner had retained the canteen premises for more than a decade by making monthly payments of merely Rs 300, although his annual tender bid was Rs 65,500, equivalent to approximately Rs 5,458 per month.
The Court held that the petitioner could not continue enjoying the benefit of an arrangement made in 2012 at nominal rental rates while denying the financial obligations arising from his subsequent tender bid.
Significantly, the High Court observed that the respondents could not be penalised merely because they were unable to finalise the allotment or initiate fresh tender proceedings due to the pendency of litigation instituted by the petitioner himself.
“The respondents cannot be put to loss and penalized for the simple reason that they could not finalize the allotment,” the Court observed while examining the consequences of the prolonged litigation.
The Court further held that payment of rent at the rate fixed in 2012 could not justify continued occupation of Government property for more than a decade without revision of the financial terms.
Justice Chowdhary ruled that the authorities had rightly raised financial liability against the petitioner on the basis of the amount quoted by him in the 2013 tender and were legally entitled to recover the outstanding dues.
However, the Court directed the Government to adjust the rent already received from the petitioner through his son, Shahid Hussan, against the total liability and recover only the remaining balance.
Finding the petition devoid of merit and substance, the High Court dismissed it along with the interim application and vacated the interim direction. (JNF) |
