Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court has recently ordered the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee to settle a Rs. 266 lakh bill along with an interest of 5% owed to the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) for the political use of its vehicles from 1981 to 1989.

The bench of Justice Manish Kumar and Justice Vivek Chaudhary said, "In the present case, the political party in power had exercised its dominant position and utilized public property for its political purposes. The bills were raised to the petitioner political party but it ignored to pay the same and, while the earlier dues were pending, again being in power it availed facilities from the respondent U.P.S.R.T.C. without paying its dues. Merely by stating that after change of government due to political vendetta the amount is wrongly being recovered or taking a technical ground that amount cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, it can not be granted liberty to escape its liability to pay its bills".

Court emphasised that the due amount was pending for last 25-30 years. 

"Petitioner showed its intention when it had filed the present writ petition and obtained interim order but for the last 25 years, it has not acted in furtherance of the assurance given on the first date of hearing. Even though, the amount is not recoverable under the provisions of Act of 1972 but for the reasons discussed above, this Court does not find it a fit case for exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of petitioner," court held. 

The order was passed in a writ petition filed by the UP Congress Committee (UPCC) in 1998 challenging the recovery notice dated November 10, 1998, issued by Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow.

The said proceedings were initiated against UPCC at the instance of the Managing Director, UPSRTC claiming that an amount of Rs.2,68,29,879.78 was due on UPCC raised against the use of buses and taxies from UPSRTC for its purposes when Congress party was in power in Uttar Pradesh. 

When the petition was filed, the sole ground taken was that the amount could not be recovered under Section 3 of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972.

The contention was that "there was no agreement relating to any loan to be recovered as land revenue or advance or grant or relating to credit in respect of, or relating to higher purchase of goods sold to petitioner by UPSRTC which could empower it to recover the said sum under Section 3(1) of Act of 1972".

Later, it was also argued that since the said facilities were provided to UPCC on the directions of the Chief Minister, the Minister concerned, or the Secretary concerned which must have been under some directions of the State Government, thus, amount was to be paid by the State Government.

The UPCC claimed that the amount was being recovered as a political vendetta and with a view to bring it under political pressure.

Notably, in 1998, before the high court, the counsel for the parties had agreed that their client would sit and settle their dispute amicably. However, the same could not happen even after 25 years. 

Moreover, although dues were of Rs.268.30 lakhs in total but out of that Rs.1.58 lakhs had been recovered through Tehsildar in 2003.

UPCC's plea was strongly opposed by UPSRTC. The counsel for the corporation argued that it was public money that was involved in the present matter and, hence, the court, while looking into the technical arguments of UPCC, should also consider the equities involved.

The high court noted that UPSRTC had duly raised bills for use of its vehicles to UPCC. 

Moreover, court pointed out that in the entire writ petition not even a single word was stated with regard to the liability of UPCC to pay the said amount.

Furthermore, court highlighted that there was nothing on record to show that any decision was ever taken by the State Government to pay the said dues.

"The documents filed along with the counter affidavit show that the concerned Ministers/Secretary only directed for providing the said vehicles to the party on its applications. Thus, it is not in dispute that petitioner had utilized services of vehicles of respondent no.4 for its political activities and has not paid bills raised for the same," court underscored. 

Court stressed that the law repeatedly settled by the Supreme Court is that the high court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in such a manner that would advance the end of justice and uproot injustice.

Along with a catena of judgments of the Top Court including the case of Shangrila Food Products Ltd where it was stated that "one of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If there be any unfair advantage gained by a party, priorly, before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court can take into account the unfair advantage gained and can require the party to shed the unfair gain before granting relief”, the high court refused to exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of UPCC. 

Case Title: U.P.Congress Committee v. State of U.P. and Others