# Balaji Catters & Party, Hardoi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 649
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-22
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 14587 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/balaji-catters-party-hardoi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47248
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
-
Art.226
-
Contractual
matters
-
Writ
petition
maintainability
-
in
the
matters
of
contract where the
petitioner seeks
enforcement of obligation on the part of
the State to pay the bills
amount
admitted by the State, the writ petition is
maintainable - but where petitioner claim
requires adjudication by making enquiry
into facts and on evidence, then the writ
petition is not the proper remedy (Para 8,
9)

Petitioner, engaged in catering work - he did
catering work & submitted bills for payment
however, payment not made - Held - petitioner
has not been able to demonstrate that it is a
case of admitted liability of the amount under
the bills submitted before the opposite parties -
Merely because of the initials of the accountant
on some bills it cannot be a case for admitted
liability (Para 6)

Dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

7 All. Balaji Catters & Party, Hardoi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
649
made out in the F.I.R., which is impugned
in the instant writ petition.

15. For the aforesaid reasons and also
considering the fact that the parties have
entered into compromise vide compromise
dated 22.06.2021 (Annexure No. 2), we
find substance in the submission of the
learned Counsel for the petitioner that
F.I.R. cannot be registered for the offence
under Section 493 I.P.C. as at the most, if
the
respondent
no.3/complainant
is
aggrieved, she ought to have filed a
complaint under Section 198 Cr.P.C. before
the competent authority. Even otherwise,
we are of the opinion that impugned FIR is
not sustainable and the same is liable to be
quashed as in the impugned F.I.R., there is
no
ingredients,
which
attracts
the
provisions of Section 493 I.P.C., hence the
same is liable to be quashed.

16. Accordingly, we allow the instant
writ petition and quash the impugned F.I.R.
dated 17.07.2020 contained in Annexure
no.1 to the writ petition.

17. The party shall file computer
generated copy of order downloaded from
the
official
website
of
High
Court
Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a
self attested identity proof of the said
person(s)
(preferably
Aadhar
Card)
mentioning the mobile number(s) to which
the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the
concerned Court/Authority/Official.

18.

The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of the computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2021)07ILR A649
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Misc. Bench No. 14587 of 2021

Balaji Catters & Party, Hardoi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ram Ji Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India
-
Art.226
-
Contractual
matters
-
Writ
petition
maintainability
-
in
the
matters
of
contract where the
petitioner seeks
enforcement of obligation on the part of
the State to pay the bills
amount
admitted by the State, the writ petition is
maintainable - but where petitioner claim
requires adjudication by making enquiry
into facts and on evidence, then the writ
petition is not the proper remedy (Para 8,
9)

Petitioner, engaged in catering work - he did
catering work & submitted bills for payment
however, payment not made - Held - petitioner
has not been able to demonstrate that it is a
case of admitted liability of the amount under
the bills submitted before the opposite parties -
Merely because of the initials of the accountant
on some bills it cannot be a case for admitted
liability (Para 6)

Dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. St. of Kerala & ors. Vs T. V. Anil, AIR 2002
Ker 160(F.B.)

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India & ors. Vs
Smt. Asha Goyal (2001) 2 SCC 160

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.N. Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ram Ji Trivedi, the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Standing Counsel for the State
opposite parties.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ
petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing
the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., District
Magistrate, Hardoi and the District Panchayat
Raj Officer, Hardoi respectively, to release
the admitted and verified amount of Rs.
6,87,800/- to the petitioner with interest
thereon from the date of entitlement of
payment of admitted amount till the date of
actual payment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner is engaged in
catering work. His quotations for providing
catering services were accepted in respect of
Awasiya C.L.T.S. Training Programme with
effect from 06.10.2017 to 10.10.2017,
26.10.2017 to 30.10.2017, 11.12.2017 and
07.03.2018 under Swachh Bharat Mission
Scheme(Rural). The petitioner did the
catering work and submitted bills for
payment from time to time aggregating to Rs.
6,87,800/-, but the payment under those bills
has not been made. He submits that the
liability for payment of the amount was
admitted by the opposite parties as according
to him the bills were verified by the
Accountant and consequently the nonpayment is not justified.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on the Full Bench
judgment of Kerala High Court in the case
of State of Kerala and others Vs. T. V.
Anil, AIR 2002 Ker 160(F.B.) to submit
that in the matters of contract where the
petitioner seeks enforcement of obligation
on the part of the State to pay the bills
amount admitted by the State, the writ
petition is maintainable.

5.

We
have
considered
the
submissions advanced and perused the
material on record.

6. From the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioner as
also from perusal of the record of the
petition what we find is that the petitioner
has not been able to demonstrate that it is a
case of admitted liability of the amount
under the bills submitted before the
opposite parties. By the Letter No.
3402/Pan.-7/Lekhakar/Sa.Ka./2018-19
dated 27.09.2018 of the District Panchayat
Raj Officer, Hardoi it was informed to the
Prabhari Adhikri (Complaint), Collectorate,
Hardoi (Annexure-9) that the file relating
to payment of catering charges was sent to
the Senior Treasury Officer, Hardoi to
make inquiry under the direction of the
District Magistrate, Hardoi. By letter No.
4089/Pan.-7/PGPortal/2019-20
dated
30.11.2019, Annexure-8 of the District
Panchayat Raj Officer, the petitioner was
directed to submit evidence and the work
order, etc., to enable to take further action.
Nothing has been brought on record to
show that the petitioner's claim has been
adjudicated upon or admitted by the
opposite parties. Merely because of the
initials of the accountant on some bills as
alleged by the petitioner, we cannot
consider it to be a case for admitted
liability in view of the above letters dated
27.09.2018 and 30.11.2019 as also nothing
has been shown to the effect that the
7 All. Balaji Catters & Party, Hardoi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
651
accountant is the competent authority to
admit the claim.

7. The claim as raised requires
adjudication by making enquiry into facts
and on evidence, for which the writ petition
is not the proper remedy. We are not
observing that the petitioner is or is not
entitled for payment but on the basis of the
material placed before us, it could not be
shown to be a case of admitted liability.

8. In the case of Life Insurance
Corporation of India and others Vs. Smt.
Asha Goyal, (2001) 2 SCC 160, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, in a case
where for determination of the dispute
raised, it is necessary to inquire into facts
for determination of which it may become
necessary to record oral evidence, a
proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution, is not the appropriate forum.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has disapproved
of a High Court entertaining a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in the matters of enforcement of
contractual
rights
and
obligation
particularly where the claim by one party is
contested by the other and adjudication of
the dispute requires enquiry into facts.

9. In T. V. Anil (supra) cited by the
petitioner's counsel, it has been held that it
cannot be said in absolute terms that a writ
petition is not maintainable in contractual
matters including where the contractors
seek enforcement of the obligation on the
part of the State to pay the bill amounts
admitted by the State. Paragraph-18 of the
judgment reads as under:

18. Guided by the salutary
principles in the subject-matter and as
particularly laid down by the Supreme
Court, and applying the same on the issue
referred to us, it has to be held that it
cannot be said in absolute terms that a writ
petition is not maintainable in contractual
matters including where the Contractors
seek enforcement of the obligation on the
part of the State to pay the bill amounts
admitted by the State. Though couched in
different terms, all the decisions referred by
us above lead to the said conclusion. All
the activities of the State are in public
interest and for public good. There is public
law element in contracts where State is a
party, and it naturally follows that there is
public duty. And above all, any State action
is liable to be tested on the touchstone of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Essentially, the only limitation of the High
Court is the self-imposed restriction. A few
relevant factors in exercising the selfimposed limitation under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in the matter of
payment of Contractors' bills are :

(1) When there is no disputed
question of fact requiring adjudication on
detailed evidence.

(2) When no alternate form is
provided in the resolution of any disputes
pertaining to a contract.

(3) When claim by one party is
not contested by the other and the contest
does not require adjudication requiring
detailed enquiry into facts.

10. There is no dispute on the above
proposition of law, but in the present case,
what we find is that there is nothing on
record to show the admitted liability of the
State opposite parties for payment of the
bills. In T. V. Anil(supra) as is evident
from para-19 thereof, there was no dispute
on the factual position and the State therein
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had admitted its liability to pay the bill
amount.

11. We are of the considered view that
the writ petition is not the proper remedy,
which is hereby dismissed on this ground
alone but, leaving it open to the petitioner
to approach the District Magistrate, Hardoi
or/ and the District Panchayat Raj Officer,
Hardoi, which had issued letter dated
30.11.2019 to the petitioner calling upon
him to submit documentary proof of
catering,
etc.,
for
redressal
of
his
grievances, upon which the competent
authority shall take final decision in the
matter, if the matter is still pending, or the
petitioner may take recourse to such other
remedy as may be open to him under law if
so advised.
----------
(2021)07ILR A652
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

Income Tax Appeal No. 103 of 2017

Daya Nand Pushpa Devi Charitable Trust
 ...Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Income Tax.
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, Sri Vivek Pratap
Singh, Sri Suresh Kumar Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Bhagat Ji Agarwal, Sri Praveen Kumar,
S.C.

(a) Income Tax - Charitable Purpose - The
Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 2(13),
2(15),
11(4),11(4A),
12-A
-
The
principle activity of the petitioner is predominantly academic and charging of fees
for the accommodation provided to the
students admitted in the dental education
course, is minor, subsidiary and subservient
to the principal activity and is an integral
part of its academic activity. It cannot be
said that the assessee's principal activity is
doing "business" in terms of
sub-section (4A) of Section 11 and its
activity of maintaining hostel and charging
fees does not fall within the meaning of
"business" under Section 2(13) of the Act.
Therefore, there is no requirement of
maintaining
separate
books
of
accounts with regard to such activity
for seeking benefit of exemption under
Section 11(1) of the Act.(Paras 38,39)

On applying the theory of dominant purpose
is applicable in the facts of the present case
where it can be safely concluded that the
surplus, if any, generated out of the activity of
maintaining halls and residents for the
students being an integral part of the main
object of education, was liable to be treated
as income from the property held by the trust
wholly for charitable purposes and was,
therefore, deductible from the total income of
the trust by granting exemption under Section
11 of the Act. (Para 41)

Appeal Allowed. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Indian Institute of Technology Vs St. of U.P.
1976 (38) STC 428 (followed)

2. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs Sales Tax Officer
AIR 1965 All 86 (followed)

3. Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth Vs
St. of U.P. & ors. 2013 (5) ADJ 85
(followed)

4. University of Delhi & anr. Vs Ram Nath &
ors. AIR 1963 SC 1873 (followed)

5.
Commissioner
of
Sales
Tax
Vs
Sai
Publication
Fund
2002
(4)
SCC
57