High Court

Judgment

1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rishabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.P. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

2. Present   petition   has   been   filed   seeking   quashing   of   the impugned order dated 15.06.2023 passed by respondent no.2, Upper Mukhya   Adhikari,   Zila   Panchayat,   Hamirpur,   and   also   the consequential recovery certificate dated 30.07.2024.

3. The   petitioners   had   a   one   year   contract   with   the   Zila Panchayat,   Hamirpur   for   collecting  tahbazari  from   heavy   vehicles, namely, trucks, tractors, trolleys and Matadors which were carrying gitti, balu, mitti, bajra, morang etc. through the District of Hamirpur. The contract was for a year, commencing 01.04.2015 and ending on

31.03.2016. The petitioners had to collect tahbazari and had to hand over Rs.1,65,65,000/­ to the Zila Panchayat in the relevant year.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the Yamuna bridge which connects Hamirpur with the rest of Uttar Pradesh had got damaged on 19.06.2015 and remained so damaged till 25.07.2015. The bridge was closed for passage of heavy vehicles for a total period of 37 days. The petitioners thereafter, calculated the amount which was to be paid on a daily basis and submitted an application before the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Hamirpur, on 20.06.2015, praying that an amount of Rs.27,60,833/­ be not taken from the petitioners. 2 To show their bona fides that the petitioners were ready and willing to pay the amounts which were due from them for the vehicles which passed   through   Yamuna   bridge,   on   20.06.2015,   the   petitioners applied   before   the   Upper   Mukhya   Adhikari,   Zila   Panchayat, Hamirpur   with   an   application   that   they   were   ready   to   pay Rs.38,42,475/­ i.e. the amount which was to be paid for the days the vehicles passed through the Yamuna bridge. The said amount, as per learned  counsel   for   the   petitioners,   was  also   accepted  by   the   Zila Panchayat through the Upper Mukhya Adhikari on 15.10.2015.

5. The   sum   and   substance   of   the   submission   made   by   learned counsel for the petitioners was that the petitioners had intended to pay   the  tahbazari  for   the   days   when   the   vehicles   passed   through Yamuna bridge and that they were to be exempted from paying the same  for   the   days   they   could   not   collect   the  tahbazari,   when   the bridge was damaged for a period of 37 days, which commenced from

19.06.2015   and   ended   on   25.07.2015.   The   petitioners,   in   this regard,   had   also   submitted   two   applications   before   the   Upper Mukhya Adhikari on 20.06.2015 and on 15.10.2015.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon Clause­11 of the   contract/agreement   which   was   entered   into   on   31.03.2015, submitted that in the contract also it was provided that if any bridge etc. was damaged, the responsibility would be of the Zila Panchayat to bear the loss. He thereafter stated that the petitioners had waited for the response of the Zila Panchayat, but when the Upper Mukhya Adhikari   from   time   to   time   demanded   the   amount   which   was payable for the 37 days without considering their own responsibility and   insisted   that   the   amount   be   paid   by   the   petitioners   and   also thereafter sent a recovery certificate in pursuance whereof a recovery citation   was   issued   against   the   petitioners   for   a   sum   of Rs.16,79,185/­, the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ 3 petition being Writ­C No.34720 of 2022, which was disposed of on

19.11.2022. By this order there was a direction that the petitioners would again submit a detailed representation alongwith all necessary papers etc. within a period of three weeks before the Upper Mukhya Adhikari   who   would   take   a   decision   in   accordance   with   law.   In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 19.11.2022, the petitioners once   again   represented   on   14.12.2022   before   the   Upper   Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Hamirpur.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel that thereafter the petitioners   waited   for   an   order   to   be   passed   waiving   off Rs.16,79,191/­ which was earlier demanded from the petitioners for the period during which they had not collected the tahbazari.

8. The Upper Mukhya Adhikar,  Zila Panchayat, Hamirpur, after looking into the representation of the petitioners, filed pursuant to order   of   this   Court   dated   19.11.2022,   passed   an   order   dated

15.06.2023. Primarily, the order of the Upper Mukhya Adhikari was passed on the presumption that the petitioners had not been able to bring on record any evidence to show that the Yamuna bridge, which connected Hamirpur with the rest of the Uttar Pradesh was damaged for the period commencing 19.06.2015 and ending 25.07.2015 (37 days). After passing of the impugned order, the petitioners had got busy in collecting information. For that purpose an application under the   Right   to   Information   Act,   2005,   from   the   National   Highways Authority   of   India   on   01.09.2023   was   also   moved   asking   for   the required information from the National Highways Authority of India. The letter in its reply had categorically informed that the traffic was hindered because of the ongoing repair work of the Yamuna bridge between   19.06.2015   and   25.07.2015.   It   had   also   informed   that during this period only light vehicles were allowed to pass over the Yamuna bridge and heavy vehicular traffic had been diverted. 4

9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that even   though   they   could   not   place   this   information   which   was received quite late in the day from the National Highways Authority of India, there was a presumption that the Zila Panchayat, Hamirpur, was in the knowledge of the fact that the bridge through which the vehicles had to pass had been damaged.

10. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners   further   submitted   that when the contract was entered into, it was specifically provided that if any hindrance of traffic etc. took place because of the bridges or the  roads  being   damaged,   then  the   liability   would  be  on  the   Zila Panchayat and not on the petitioners. Learned counsel also stated that when the bridge was not functioning and the petitioners had given information about this fact to the Upper Mukhya Adhikari on

20.06.2015 itself, then it was the bounden duty of the Zila Panchayat to have looked into the information sent by the petitioners and it should have also verified the facts as were stated in the application of the petitioners.

11. Pursuant to a previous order dated 22.01.2025 passed in this writ petition, learned counsel appearing for the Zila Panchayat has placed   certain   instructions   dated   05.02.2025   and   he   has   also submitted   as   had   been   stated   in   paragraphs­7   and   8   of   the instructions   that   the   petitioners   even   if   were   not   collecting   the tahbazari  for   the   vehicles   which   were   passing   through   the   bridge they   were   definitely   collecting   the  tahbazari  from   vehicles   which were   passing   through   alternative   routes,   and   that   the   petitioners must   have   collected   all   the  tahbazari  at   initial   barrier   itself   from where the vehicles were coming after loading their minerals.

12. It is also the case of the Zila Panchayat in the order impugned that   the   petitioners   ought   to   have   collected   the  tahbazari  at   one 5 particular point and thereafter the vehicles were free to go in the manner   they   intended   to   go.   When   in   the   order   it   was   also mentioned that there were alternative routes, then it was also the bounden duty of the Zila Panchayat to have indicated as to how the petitioners   were   collecting   the  tahbazari  from   the   vehicles   which were to go through the multiple alternative passages/routes.

13. Having   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners   and   the learned   counsel   appearing   for   Zila   Panchayat,   we   are   of   the considered  view that   the   order  dated  15.06.2023 had erroneously stated that the petitioners had not been able to give any proof of the fact that the bridge was closed from 19.06.2015 to 25.07.2015. Such fact ought to have been well known to the Zila Panchayat and the Zila Panchayat itself ought to have verified the fact as was informed by the petitioners. If at all the Zila Panchayat was not relying upon the information given by the petitioners, then it was always free to take information from the National Highways Authority of India as to whether  the   vehicles   had  any  other  alternative   routes/passages  to pass through Hamirpur.

14. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that definitely the Zila Panchayat did not look into the case as was brought forth by the petitioners. The petitioners filed various representations and the Zila   Panchayat,   definitely,   failed   to   look   into   the   matter   as   to whether from 19.06.2015 to 25.07.2015, the bridge was closed. We are   also   of   the   view   that   the   Zila   Panchayat   is   a   body   which   is capable enough to have access to all the information with regard to roads and bridges etc. which connect Hamirpur with the rest of Uttar Pradesh. We are thus of the view that even if the petitioners did not bring any evidence in that regard, the Zila Panchayat ought to have looked into the factum of the bridge being damaged, itself, by getting information from the National Highways Authority of India and the 6 Zila   Panchayat   ought   to   have   categorically   seen   if   the   District   of Hamirpur was connected only through this particular bridge which was damaged or whether the vehicles were passing through other alternative   passages/routes.   It   should   also   have   seen   if   it   was possible for the petitioners to collect the tahbazari from the vehicles passing through multiple routes.

15. Further, we are of the view, as has been stated by the counsel for   the  petitioners,  that  a  definite  finding  was  necessary   as  to  on what   point,   the  tahbazari  was   collectable.   We   are   thus   of   the considered view that the order dated 15.06.2023 cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

16. With the above findings, the writ petition stands allowed.

17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.06.2023 is set aside. Also, the recovery certificate dated 30.07.2024, issued consequent to the   aforesaid   order   by   the   Zila   Panchayat   through   the   District Magistrate/Collector,   is   also   set   aside.   Consequently,   the   recovery citation issued by the Tehsildar is also set aside.

18. The Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Hamirpur shall now reconsider the representation, as was filed by the petitioners on

14.12.2022 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 19.11.2022 afresh.   The   decision   would   be   arrived   at   within   a   period   of   one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Needless   to   mention   that   the   petitioners   shall   also   be   provided personal hearing. Order Date :­ 7.2.2025 Shahroz

(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.)      (Siddhartha Varma,J.)

(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.)      (Siddhartha Varma,J.)