Pramod Singh v. The Deputy Development Commissioner-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
6 This writ application stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Indian Contract Act, 1872 s. 56
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
... ... Petitioner/s ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the S t a t e For the Zila Parishad ====================================================== Mr Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr Mritunjay Kumar, AC to AAG VI N O N E : : : CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD (Per: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 2 The petitioner has asserted in the present writ application that pursuant to an invitation for short term tender for the settlement of Imamganj Bus Stand in the district of Gaya for the financial year, 2019 – 2020, he being the highest bidder, the said Bus Stand was settled in his favour. In terms of the agreement for settlement, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs 17,32,500/-. For the next financial year 2020 – 2021 also, the Bus
Operative part
Patna High Court CWJC No.7566 of 2021 dt.17-05-2022 Stand was settled in favour of the petitioner. A sum of Rs 17,33,160/- was deposited by the petitioner on 19.03.2020 (wrongly typed as 19.07.2020 in paragraph 5 of the writ petition). 3 It is the petitioner’s case that soon after the said amount was deposited by the petitioner, a complete lock down was clamped in the wake of COVID – 19 Pandemic. There was no business at all at the Bus Stand because of the said lock-down. In the said background, the present writ application has been filed seeking direction to the Respondent-Zila Parishad to renew the settlement for collecting the ground rent for the next financial year, 2021 – 2022 also against the amount already deposited by the petitioner for settlement of the Bus Stand for the previous financial year 2020 – 2021. The said financial year 2021 – 2022 has also come to an end. 4 Mr Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to contend that since it was impossible for the petitioner to run his business based on the settlement agreement for the financial year 2020 – 2021, the authorities ought to have duly considered the petitioner’s case and extended the period of settlement. He has further submitted that, alternatively, the respondents may be directed to adequately compensate the Patna High Court CWJC No.7566 of 2021 dt.17-05-2022 petitioner for the loss suffered by him because the settlement in his favour, for the period during which there was complete lock-down, did not yield any benefit to the petitioner. 5 Be that as it may, we are not inclined to enter into such claims as have been raised in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner may be advised to pursue his remedy either before competent Civil Court or before any other alternative dispute redressal forum, as may be legally available to him in terms of the settlement agreement or otherwise. 6 This writ application stands disposed of accordingly. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) (Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date NAFR NA 19.05.2022 NA
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 6 This writ application stands disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Contract Act, 1872 — s. 56; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Patna High Court, on 17 May 2022. The bench was CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, MADHURESH PRASAD.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.