_IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURIC_.G^) WRIT PETITION N0. ^ofc2^2004 ^5nQls 'Rffl"** PETITIQNER ^ k;^ ^ w J"". ^c"" ^ L^' Contractor, ^0.^-^^- Nawagarh, ^^ ••""^f'^"' ^K ^"'\' Pw^ ^- Nanakobamj Mulchandani, aged about 50 years, son of Shri 'Ramesh Mulchandani, Bilaighat Nawagarh, Raipur, Resident of Nawapara, Rajim, Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS S#.E RESPONDENTS ^l ^^:"i,. '•<• ,,^M^ -^w^ ^'" -\^~' "^\ ••SfiVt 'ySf-'tf, yy^n ^ // '; Vc.' •y .<t. A fl—l. State of Chhattisgarh,through <' The Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Dau Kalyan' Singh Bhawan, RAIPUR (Chhattisgarh) ^ ^_2. The Chief Executive Officer,, Magarload Janpad Panchayat, Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ^- 3. Janpad Panchayat Magarload, Tah. Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Collector, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, p XI-HC-78^ ;3^;*<ll<lt<*l'i),'®TlWt*118,:l^«<l)j('IIJ<. w^ ^o^\ ^ ,,^:^p^gpj^»,.A..:»..........,^...,.....^^^.^,^^. aia^»i^a4?!(iyl;^si4isi^ sn^nwR'iNiB craTaii^rsnii'n e«iwit'uRn'a<i^T q)l<lFl'1<(ll«|t|<gTffte'<fl<Rtt<ilt ^arf^ifgn^T \ — Shri G.S. Agrawal, Sr.| Advocate with Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate for'the petitioner. SliriParag Kotecha, P4nelLawyer forthe respondents No. 1 and 4. Shn Alok Baxi, Ad.voc4.te for respondents No. 2-artd 3. 2 Heard.. 3. The..petitiQner has Brererred this writ petition under Articles 226/227 ofthe Constitutior| dated 15-12-2004 (Anne?| .05A/1989 by the Addition^ l.oflndia being aggrieved by the order ^ure P-1) passed in appeal No. CoUector, Dhamtari cancelluig the lease for ferry as well as cotjection of tolls whereas period oflease was yef to expire. TKe petiti^iner's case is thaf the respondent No. 3 auctioned the ferry of i Belhari Nawagarh in the mi|)nth of May 2004. The petitioner was the highest bidder, therefoil petitioner's bid vide lefter <| Rs.'7,62,000/-. The. 'petit| iver Mahanadi of Magarload called |e, tUe respondent No. 3 accepted the Jlated 29-5-2004 and the bid was for |oner deposited an aniount of Rs. 20,000/- as per the condition and terms of the auction. First instalmeat;bf^lease.i.e.tRs[ ,3,04,800/- was deposited with the respondent no, 3, Letter.o|7 acc.eptaiice of bid is Annexi.u-e P.5. XI-HC-78 Sn^Tq'liR'IB*!? ?raT3ii^isn*fi<n ; /) *»!!IWt!Is"SI**t1'Wi 3:^a*<fwiffi<(,'EST{l'tti«,Rj<rtltlg<. \^f s^^^ \.«"^'^>-»•*-^"*:^* •*••»'••*"*''*'*•••*••*••^»..»v»L.«'. ai.i!^i'.iii<»>^i^iy»l;i^ B^nw^fTsn^T -l^- Thereafter the petitioner agreement of lea.se for tht 2004 to 15th June 2005 a^ asked to take charge of fh^ is Annexure P-8. On 18-61 Annexure P-13 from. the ferrv work as an accident the boats have been lost. Ij stated that 'he was givsn since beginning of Ms woj that the amount for repaj|c iriformed the respondent the area resulting i,p flood; )'s people Goniing for ei( instrucfion of the respond| of the petitioner is, respbndents no. 2 and 3| caUing upon the petitioni) lease; will b& cancelled, Annexure P-16 sta.tmg th^ extension. of time. and. under-whleh he was askeit °ni<i?CT<fliii*i<'iTffte<^<Rtt<iit %3lf^T3fI^T and resDondent No. 3 executed an period comniencing from 16th June per Annexure P-6. The petitioner was Ghatvideletterdated 7-5-2004 which :i|-2004, the petitioner received a letter t'espondent no. 3 that he should stop fcad occurred in which some luggage in fi reply to the saicl letter, the petitioner the boats in a damaged condition and 'k he was reminding the respondents be given fo 1'iim. The petltioner also tio. 3 about iinexpected early rains to in Malianadl, thereby obstructing the bssing one side to aiiother ajixl on oral ;nt~no. 3,he continued to fem'. Reply Arlnexure P-14. On 4-10-2004, the seryed a notice vide Aniiexiire P-15 ir'to pay secorid installnient else the to which the petitioner replied vide a'ein that he'had already requested for stated therein the circ^imstances 1 not to operate the ferries for a month J.. allso XI-HC-78 NW'tCTi'ftwrKh ^^'E'<frtl!1'<l,^SI?En*l-IIS,(5ldl^g(. _ V3/ ^O^-l^ ';.:*>^..•;..*..*•*'*.•»•»•.»;*,*.*"* •• »^«.i»^l.&*.^.^^ 2WO •3<lSiflIM'il<n(t^d'*i?'^ sn^wf^iH*3 awsn^TgnNi wniBi<?u6(]iaii^r ?>• <n«lIci«lll;11*l<"lTi;F^lail<Rl<<ilt • ^ari^iTsn^r or more, resulting in hug.d loss to the petitioner and also the amount detained by the re^pondents No. 2 and 3 with respect to repairing of'boats and cons|:ructions of roads of both sides of the river. However 6n .15-14-2004, the petitioner's lease was canceUed vide Annexure P nph-payment 6f instaUnien.1 of lease. The respondent ^17, on account of the police repot, [ and non-compUance of the condltion no. 3 passed a resolution dated 14-10-2004 vide Annexur^ P-18 canceUing the lease of the petitioner and the notice of|;anceUation was given on 15-10-2004 which is violative of m^ndato-n' provision of Rules (7) of Chhattissarh Janpad Panc^ 1999 (for short hereinafter ] 4. The petitiOner preferr| the CoUee.tor and the pefit| on the grouiid that eancell^ of Rule 7 6f the Rules df 19|99. |iayat (Manageiaent of Ferries) Rules, Ireferred to as "the Rules of 1999"). ^d an appeal which was dismissed by l.oner challenged the impugned order Ltion of fhe lease :was in utter violation 5. Retiirn has been,?filec| has been mentioned tEat ii|i n6 notice was reqiiired befcji 6; I have heard the leari|ied counsel for the parties. <^ \- on behalf of respondeiits in which it view of Rule 31 of ffie Rules of 1999, 're cancellatiori ofthe lease. y XI-HC-78 |3y^'<ii«iisi<i,:i*rfl+l'id^Rj<»liq9,<. ^^SE^KV^'"'^^t'''i':'''i^^'^aSJi cf7' 3i i^yi^w (lic<i^ats(lsl) SII^TqiT^IRi: ^iT^n^T^iri^ B?ttIW»feT3Tl^r M' 7. Learned Sr.Counsel case before cancellation of was given as per Rule 7 respondents before canceUe required to give one month of the petitioner, therefoi mlpugned is liable ito be se1 8. Qn the ot.her,hand, S for the resuondents No. appearing for respondents was breach and non-paym^ Rule 31 of the Rules of further argued that it is s| P-6 that the first instaUmej deposited within 3 days second installment of 20(^ September 2004, and vide| petitioner was reminded t]| to be deposited by 15-9[ deposited aad the said 11-10-2004, otherwise ac^ 'ni<iffi<fl-f tiiHciTffte8' ^Rgre '•;;^3l1^tT.3,fI^T , $Iiri G.S. Agrawal argued that in this |the lease of the petitioner, no notice of the Rules of 1999 whereas the j.tion of the lease of the petitioner were [notice in order to explain the conduct ^e, on this ground only, the order aside. |hri Kotecha, Panel LSLWJGT appearin{ |1 and 4 ancl Shri Bakshi, coimsel No. 2 and 3 argued that since there ^nt of lease money, as such, iii view of [999, no notice was necessar^?. They becificallv envisaged in the Annexi.ire at of 40% ofthe lease mSBey was to be from the sanction bf fhe Ghat an& aiaount was to be deposited by 15th Annexure^P-15 dated 4-10-2004, the laf the aiiiount. ofRs. 1,52,400/- was -2004 and the sajne has not been am.punt be deposited positively by ion wUl be taken as per the written XI-HC-78 ^^^<l<<l<9<l,SiAu*16,"Rl»(IWy, , *ti*i^i.?sl»*41^, •*•«•••••••"•" ••''•^^'ip^'^^KX) 3ti^>i <.i;it)^4c<';lslli?*) 3TI^T^TRl-<i* trarsii^i sriffi iRtnwgStTw^r, •~~^ ':ni<lI<ll<fl-f*<|t|ilffftei<iltR <li< ^gii^irsn^T agreement. It was also men) time has been sought by yc| General Administration rejected and it has been dej for paym.ent as per the agr^ itioned in ttiat. letter that two months' |iu which has been considered by the Cbmmittee and the same has heen ;ided to issue notice to the petitioner iement. 9. Havuig heard the le; peruseS the relevant ctocuij Rules of 1999. Rule 7 envis^ to grant alease ofto^ may cancel it on the ivritmg to fhs.'lessee oj When any ledse is cai) Panchayat in which the lessee such com^ with the previous pen^ Rule 31 of the Rules di -ned counsel for the parties, I have lierits arid Riile 7 ancl Rule 31 of the ;es as im.der:- [letise.- Tke authority .empowered ^s of any Janpad Panchdyat ferry , [ ^xpiration. pf one rnonths notice in 'ife intention to cancel such lease. icelled under this nde, the Janpad uch ferry is situated shall pay to leTLsation as may be detemnned, lission ofthe Collector. >f 1999 envisages as under:- tt./S f. /^fTf^<r>^s'JJt f rules.- When any default in the paymenlf lecise on default or brea.ch of of the tolls offerry makes ofrentpayable in respect ofsuch IdBsee XI-HC-78 wi*<ni?<h*iict» g^'T<<iwRi<,:®1(fty'i<s,l°fe<lMS<- \^f ^fel-f"4 .•«'.:.•.•-* .* •*..*•*.*•»•*• • ••*:* «'.-«!.:^'?4'.»'..• 3< i^fi MSIW (<jct!yiq?sT) 3f)^T?)TR-ii<* TOT 311^11 *li+ waiWBf^Tsfi^r ^- 'hllTtt'fl-l *ii*«iTffteA <R]+ait ^arf^Hsn^T tolls, or has been 29, 30 o/havihg been 28, 2.9, 30 is aga.in pi| of those rules, the Jcj lease of. the, tolls <\ arrangements for its part ofthe termfor purilfshed ofan offence under ru.ie 28, punished ofan ojjence under Rule 'nished ofan offence under either inpad Panchayat may cancel the if s'uch ferry, •and make other ^peration during the whole or any wNich the tolls were let. " 10. A bare reading of fhesl two rules would show tfaat Rule 7 of fhe Rules of 1999 envlsage^ ateout general power to cancel lease whereas Rule 31 of the Ru3 lease on default or breach .es of 1999 deals with cancellation of bf rules and this rule can be invoked where there is a, nbn-paym|ent of the rent payable in respect of toll or the lessee has been FJunished for offence under rule 28, 29 and 30. Iri tfae present cs|.se, it is admitted position that the petitioner had failed to de^iosit the second installmeiit of lease monev as agreed to bv hint. to the agreement Aniiexure P-6 bv 15th September 2004 and 4-10-2004, the petitio&er v| deposit the second installm| sought extension of two for which vide Aniiexure P-15 dated •as informed that he was required to snt oflease money by 15ttl September 2004, whereas he has fai|ed to deposit the said amount aiid months tuiie and that has been XI-HC-78 iffliR'WWWRR' ;^i'<l»1t|!?l»,»S!«l'6R[?p ^.^•.g^^^.i;<i&l.& ^XSfWSSf <a \3):(^y);«lsi*n^'@!lI;iS|i^<): an^Twl^a^- (raT3(A-!lih*f 'i /•''n \-; •.:;.- •iBt<ira<.«tBn3I1^I. ¥ consElered by thej General been decided; to ^Tejecf th mformed Aat, b}? 11-10-: installment; failillg which whteh he' himself will: cu-GUinstaB.ces, uijniy cpns 31 of the jRules off 1999 we deposit ftle^lease ajmoiint ai accordingiv tKe Janpad'PaJ the piywisions arid. cancgl Riiles of 1999 reg9Tding n Rute 7 ofthe Rules -ofi^9S 1.1. In view of ffae above petifioir.IiaA.no meFit,;tIie « accordiagly dismissed. ./ <»iNF<"i<fr<iiKciTff^itT ^-SWiS^g^D-gj^j^ Mminlstoration Committee;and it has i saQiie. The.petitioiier was fm'thea'l^ 3004, te inust dep©sitfhe second | fhe lease wUl be cancelled aad for^ be. responsible. TBerefbre, in thej |idered opiiiion, the grcyvlsion, of Rule | s^attracted as the pe|titioner ^failed to | i peFtKe agi'eeraent Annexiire P-6 ainfi iGhayatwas wifhm its; right to invok^ he lease in view ofthe Rule 31 of fhe ] on-payment of the lease ^m.oney. The | was; not attracted in jthe case. , 1 ^am of the opiniQn fhat thls writ .ame is'liable to tie dismissed and if is ~g8F~ L.C. Bhadoo Judge