# Narayan Kumar Agarwal & Anr v. Board of Revenue, Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 146
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-06
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 359 of 2022
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narayan-kumar-agarwal-anr-v-board-of-revenue-allahabad-ors-49128
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
Rule 285 E - Sale of Immovable Property -
The full amount of purchase money shall
be paid by the purchaser on or before the
fifteenth day from the date of the sale and
in case of default the deposit, shall be
forfeited to Government and the property
shall
be
resold
and
the
defaulting
purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the
property, or to any part of the sum for
which it may be subsequently sold -
provision contained under Rule 285-E of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules mandatory - In the
instant
case
auction
took
place
on
8.10.1975 and 1/4th (Rs.4,000/-) amount
was
deposited
by
respondent
on
8.10.1975
but
the
remaining
3/4th
amount
deposited
on
7.11.1975
i.e.
beyond period of 15 days from the date of
auction - sale certificate was issued on
7.6.1995
in
favour
of
respondent
-
Objection under Rule 285 I of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Rules was filed by the petitioners
on 8 7.2.1977 which was dismissed by the
Commissioner on the ground of limitation
and the revision was also dismissed by the
Board of Revenue - Held - Since, the 3/4th
amount has been deposited after period of
15 days from the date of auction, as such,
in view of provisions contained under Rule
285 E of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, the auction
/ sale shall deemed to be null and void
and property shall be re-sold. (Para 8, 9,
10,11)

B. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952,
Rule 285 I, - Application to set aside sale,
within 30 days - Delay - Limitation Act,
1963, S. 5 - limitation in filing the
objection under Rule 285 I of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Rules - provision of Section 5 of
Limitation Act will be applicable to the
proceeding under Rule 285 I of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R (Para 12)

C. Constitution of India,1950 - Art. 226 -
Alternative
Remedy
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952, Rule 285 E - direct writ
petition is also maintainable under Article
226 of the Constitution of India if there is
violation of Rule 285 E of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Rules (Para 13)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution of India as held by Supreme
Court in case of Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma
(supra).

9. In view thereof, the impugned
order dated 17.12.2021 is hereby set aside.

10. Petitioner is permitted to continue
in service till the age of 62 years and he
shall be provided all consequential benefits
of service in accordance with law.

11. With the aforesaid, the writ
petition stands allowed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 146
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 359 of 2022

Narayan Kumar Agarwal & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue, Allahabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manish Kumar Nigam

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, Sri
Sanjay Maurya

A. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
Rule 285 E - Sale of Immovable Property -
The full amount of purchase money shall
be paid by the purchaser on or before the
fifteenth day from the date of the sale and
in case of default the deposit, shall be
forfeited to Government and the property
shall
be
resold
and
the
defaulting
purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the
property, or to any part of the sum for
which it may be subsequently sold -
provision contained under Rule 285-E of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules mandatory - In the
instant
case
auction
took
place
on
8.10.1975 and 1/4th (Rs.4,000/-) amount
was
deposited
by
respondent
on
8.10.1975
but
the
remaining
3/4th
amount
deposited
on
7.11.1975
i.e.
beyond period of 15 days from the date of
auction - sale certificate was issued on
7.6.1995
in
favour
of
respondent
-
Objection under Rule 285 I of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Rules was filed by the petitioners
on 8 7.2.1977 which was dismissed by the
Commissioner on the ground of limitation
and the revision was also dismissed by the
Board of Revenue - Held - Since, the 3/4th
amount has been deposited after period of
15 days from the date of auction, as such,
in view of provisions contained under Rule
285 E of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, the auction
/ sale shall deemed to be null and void
and property shall be re-sold. (Para 8, 9,
10,11)

B. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952,
Rule 285 I, - Application to set aside sale,
within 30 days - Delay - Limitation Act,
1963, S. 5 - limitation in filing the
objection under Rule 285 I of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Rules - provision of Section 5 of
Limitation Act will be applicable to the
proceeding under Rule 285 I of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R (Para 12)

C. Constitution of India,1950 - Art. 226 -
Alternative
Remedy
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952, Rule 285 E - direct writ
petition is also maintainable under Article
226 of the Constitution of India if there is
violation of Rule 285 E of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Rules (Para 13)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Manilal Mohanlal Shah & ors. Vs Sardar
Sayed Ahmad Sayed Mahmad & anr. AIR 1954
SC 349
1 All. Narayan Kumar Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad & Ors.
147
2. Mahmood Ahmad Khan (dead) Through L.Rs.
Vs Ranbir Singh & ors. 1955 AWC 896

3. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs M/s Swadeshi Polytex
Ltd. & ors. 2009 (107) R.D. 22,

4. Moolchand Vs Collector, Jalaun & ors. AIR
1982 All 141

5. Babu Ram Vs The Board of Revenue, U.P.,
Lucknow & ors. 1989 All LJ 1238

6. Kunwar Mohan Swarup Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
1965 All LJ 277

7. Smt. Shanti Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 1997
R.D. 583

8. Prithvipat Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 1998 (1) AWC
471

9. Savitri Singh Vs Board of Revenue, U.P.,
Lucknow & ors. 2008 (104) R.D. 728,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam,
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2
and Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal and Sri
Sanjay Maurya, counsel for respondent
nos.4 & 5.

2. Brief facts of the case are that there
were certain sales take dues against the
firm M/s Sudarshan Oil Mills Nasirabad,
Padri Bazar, District- Gorakhpur for the
year 1963-1964 to 1969-1970 for an
amount
of
Rs.7764.57
+
interest.
Petitioners' father Manohar Lal was a
partner
in
the
aforementioned
firm.
Recovery proceeding for the sales tax of
the aforesaid firm were initiated and an
order of attachment was issued by the
Collector on 22.7.1975 attaching double
storied house belonging to petitioners'
father. Thereafter a sale proclamation dated
2.9.1975 was issued by the Collector for
the auction of the house belonging to
petitioners' father fixing 7.10.1975 under
Rule 282 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules.
Since 7.10.1975 was a holiday, hence
auction could not take place on 7.10.1975.
An auction was held on 8.10.1975 without
issuing any fresh proclamation for holding
auction. Six persons participated in the
auction and out of six persons, Sri Durga
Prasad was the highest bidder having made
a bid of Rs.13,000/-. One Kanhaiya Lal S/o
Mewa Lal Jaiswal (respondent no.5) moved
an application on 8.10.1975 itself for
purchase the house which was alleged to
put on auction on 8.10.1975 for a sum of
Rs.16,000/-. Durga Prasad who was the
highest bidder has given "no objection
certificate" to the application of respondent
no.5. Petitioners who were minor at the
time of auction and father of the petitioners
was confined to bed, moved an application
before the Collector, Gorakhpur raising his
objection to the attachment / auction. A
report dated 17.10.1975 in respect to the
application / objection was submitted to the
auction alleged to take place on 8.10.1975.
1/4th amount of the auction money i.e.
Rs.4,000/- was deposited by respondent
no.5 on 8.10.1975 and the remaining 3/4th
amount i.e. Rs.12,000/- was not deposited
by respondent no.5 within 15 days i.e. on or
before
23.10.1975.
Deputy
Collector
(Collection) Sales Tax, Gorakhpur issued a
notice dated 27.10.1975 to respondent no.5
that he has not deposited Rs.12,000/-, as
such, time was given to deposit the same by
28.10.1975, aforesaid application dated
27.10.1975 was received by respondent
no.5 on 27.10.1975. Respondent no.5 did
not deposit the remaining 3/4th amount
rather moved an application on 28.10.1975
on which Deputy Collector passed an order
dated 1.11.1975 mentioning that remaining
amount is to be deposited within fifteen
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
days form the date of auction and in case
the same is not deposited, the money
deposited earlier is to be forfeited. On
7.11.1975, respondent no.5 moved an
application to deposit Rs.12,000/- on
which, Deputy Collector permitted him to
deposit at his own risk. On 22.10.1975,
petitioners' father- Manohar Lal moved an
application requesting the Collector not to
confirm the auction sale. A letter dated
1.11.1975 / 6.11.1975 issued by Deputy
Collector
(Collection)
Sales
Tax,
Gorakhpur was served upon the petitioners
in which it was mentioned that in
pursuance of the application moved by the
petitioners on 9.10.1975 and the application
moved by petitioners' father- Manohar Lal,
District
Magistrate
vide
order
dated
30.10.1975 passed an order for recovering
the sales tax dues as per law. Petitioners'
father- Manohar Lal received a letter dated
15.1.1977 through registered post to the
effect that Additional Collector vide order
dated 22.12.1975 has directed that sale
certificate be issued in favour of respondent
no.5. Petitioners' father, accordingly, filed
an objection under Rule 285 I of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules on 7.2.1977 before
the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division,
Gorakhpur along with the prayer for
condonation of delay in filing the objection
challenging the auction alleged to be held
on 8.10.1975. On the objection of the
petitioners' father under Rule 285 I of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, the objections were
filed
by
the
State
Government
on
30.5.1977.
Commissioner,
Gorakhpur
Division, Gorakhur vide order dated
15.6.1981 rejected the objections filed by
the petitioners' father under Rule 285 I of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules on the ground that
the application has been filed after
prescribed period of 30 days. Against the
order dated 15.6.1981, a revision was filed
by the petitioners before the Board of
Revenue, Allahabad which was dismissed
vide order dated 4.7.1981 on the ground
that revision will lie before the Board of
Revenue, Lucknow. Against the order dated
4.7.1981 passed by the Board of Board of
Revenue, Allahabad. Petitioners' father
filed writ petition No.8330 of 1981 before
this Court in which interim order was
passed to the effect that sale held in favour
of other side shall not take effect provided
petitioners deposit the entire amount. In
compliance of the interim order dated
6.7.1981
passed
by
this
Court,
the
petitioners deposited the entire amount.
Writ Petition No.8330 of 1981 was finally
heard and vide order dated 7.2.1994, writ
petition was allowed, order dated 4.7.1981
was set aside and matter was remanded
back before the Board of Revenue to decide
the revision afresh. In the meantime, sale
certificate has been issued on 7.6.1995 by
the
Deputy
Collector
(Collection)
/
Additional
District
Magistrate,
Sadar,
Gorakhpur in favour of respondent no.5.
After remand order passed by this Court,
revision has been heard afresh by the Board
of
Revenue
and
vide
order
dated
11.10.2021 revision was dismissed, hence
this writ petition. This Court while
entertaining the writ petition has passed the
interim order dated 27.5.2022, which is as
under:

"Heard
Sri
Manish
Kumar
Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of State
respondents.

The present petition has been
filed seeking to raise a challenge to the
order dated 15.6.1981, passed by the
respondent
no.
2,
Commissioner,
Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur whereby
the application filed by the predecessors-inthe interest of the petitioners under Rule
1 All. Narayan Kumar Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad & Ors.
149
285-I
of
Uttar
Pradesh
Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952
was rejected and the subsequent order
dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Member,
Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad
dismissing the revision filed thereagainst by
the petitioners.

Contention of counsel for the
petitioners is that the auction sale having
been held on 7.10.1975/8.10.1975 and the
deposit of 25% of the bid amount having
been made on the same day, the balance
amount of the purchase money was
mandatorily required to be deposited on or
before 15 days from the date of sale as per
Rule 285-E and, in the event of default, the
sale would be held to be nullity. It is
accordingly submitted that even if the
application under Rule 285-I was held to
be beyond the prescribed time period
allowed for the purpose that would have
made no difference.

Counsel for the petitioners has
drawn the attention of the Court of the fact
that during the pendency of the revision
before the Board an interim order staying
the confirmation of sale was operating.

Prima
facie
matter
requires
consideration.

Issue notice to the respondent
nos. 4, 5 and 6 returnable by 16.8.2022.

Respondents are granted four
weeks' week time to file counter affidavit.
Petitioners shall have two weeks' thereafter
to file rejoinder affidavit.

List on 16.8.2022.

Till the next date of listing, statusquo with regard to possession of the
property, which is subject matter of the
auction sale, shall be maintained."

3. In pursuance of the order dated
27.5.2022, respondent nos.4 & 5 has filed
his counter affidavit along with an
application for vacation of interim order,
petitioners
have
filed
their
rejoinder
affidavit also to the counter affidavit filed
by respondent nos.4 & 5.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that respondent no.5 has deposited
Rs.4,000/- on 8.10.1975, the auction was
confirmed for issuing sale certificate vide
order dated 17.10.1975 / 18.10.1975 but the
remaining 3/4th amount of Rs.12,000/- was
deposited by respondent no.5 on 7.11.1975
which fully demonstrate that auction was
confirmed prior to deposit of auction money
by the auction purchaser. He further submitted
that date of auction was 8.10.1975, as such, the
3/4th amount was to be deposited within
fifteen days i.e. on or before 23.10.1975 as
prescribed under Rule 285 E of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Rules, as such, the entire auction
proceeding deemed to be null and void. He
further submitted that objection under Rule
285 I of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules filed by the
petitioners has been rejected on the ground of
limitation although in view of the Division
Bench decision of this Court, the Section 5 of
the Limitation Act will be applicable to the
objection under Rule 285 I of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Rules also. He further submitted that revision
filed by the petitioners was also dismissed
arbitrarily by the Board of Revenue without
considering the case of the petitioners on
merit. He further submitted that entire auction
proceeding were initiated in violation of Rule
285 E and 285 K of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Rules,
1952. He further submitted that alleged sale is
a nullity and has to be ignored in full.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
placed
reliance
upon
the
following
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as this Court:

(i) AIR 1954 SC 349, Manilal
Mohanlal Shah and Others Vs. Sardar
Sayed Ahmad Sayed Mahmad and Another.
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii) 1955 AWC 896, Mahmood
Ahmad Khan (dead) Through L.Rs. Vs.
Ranbir Singh and Others

(iii) 2009 (107) R.D. 22, State of
U.P. and Others Vs. M/s Swadeshi Polytex
Ltd. and Others.

(iv) AIR 1982 All 141 Moolchand
Vs. Collector, Jalaun and Others.

(v) 1989 All LJ 1238, Babu Ram
Vs. The Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow
and Others

(vi) 1965 All LJ 277, Kunwar
Mohan Swarup Vs. State of U.P. & Others

(vii) 1997 R.D. 583, Smt. Shanti
Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others

(viii)
1998
(1)
AWC
471,
Prithvipat Vs. State of U.P. and Others

(ix) 2008 (104) R.D. 728, Savitri
Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow
and Others.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel
for respondent nos.4 & 5 submitted that the
objection under Rule 285 I of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Rules filed by the petitioners was
barred by limitation as prescribed under the
Rule 285 I of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, as
such, the objection was rightly rejected by
the Court of Commissioner and the same
was rightly maintained by the Board of
Revenue. He further submitted that 3/4th
amount of the bid has been deposited
although after fifteen days but under the
permission
of
the
Deputy
Collector
(Collection) as well as Tax Collector Sales
Tax Gorakhpur dated 7.11.1975, as such,
the deposit will be treated to be valid
deposit. He further submitted that sale
certificate has been issued to the auction
purchaser / respondent no.5 on 7.6.1995, as
such, no interference is required in the
matter. Counsel for the petitioner further
placed
reliance
upon
the
provisions
contained under Rule 285 K of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Rules which says that If no application
under Rule 285-I is made within the time
allowed, all claims on the ground of
irregularity or mistake in publishing or
conducting the sale shall be barred. He
further placed reliance upon the judgment
of this Court passed in Writ-B No.1003602
of 2010, Smt. Parvinder Kaur Vs. Board of
Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and Others
decided on 27.1.2002 in which it has been
held that Section 5 of Limitation Act will
not be applicable in respect to the
objections filed under Rule 285 I of the
U.P.Z.A.
& L.R.
Rules.
He
finally
submitted that the writ petition filed by the
petitioners has no merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

7. I have considered the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

8. There is no dispute about the fact
that auction alleged to take place on
8.10.1975 and 1/4th (Rs.4,000/-) amount
was deposited by respondent no.5 on
8.10.1975 but the remaining 3/4th amount
deposited on 7.11.1975 i.e. beyond period
of 15 days from the date of auction.
Objection under Rule 285 I of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Rules was filed by the petitioners
on 7.2.1977 which was dismissed by the
Commissioner vide order dated 15.6.1981
on the ground of limitation and the revision
filed by the petitioners was also dismissed
by the Board of Revenue by the impugned
order dated 11.10.2021. The sale certificate
was issued in the matter on 7.6.1995 in
favour of respondent no.5.

9. Since, the 3/4th amount has been
deposited after period of 15 days from the
date of auction, as such, in view of
provisions contained under Rule 285 E of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, the auction / sale
shall deemed to be null and void and
1 All. Narayan Kumar Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad & Ors.
151
property shall be re-sold. Rule 285 E of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules is as follows:

"285-E. The full amount of
purchase money shall be paid by the
purchaser on or before the fifteenth day
from the date of the sale at the district
treasury or any sub-treasury and in case of
default the deposit, after the expenses of
sale have been defrayed therefrom, shall be
forfeited to Government and the property
shall
be
resold
and
the
defaulting
purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the
property, or to any part of the sum for
which it may be subsequently sold."

10. Considering the mandatory
provision contained under Rule 285-E of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules as well as ratio of
law laid down in Manilal Mohanlal Shah
(supra), Kunwar Mohan Swarup (supra),
Moolchand (supra), Babu Ram (supra)
Mahmood Ahmad Khan (supra) and State
of U.P. (supra) as cited by counsel for the
petitioners impugned auction sale cannot be
maintained in the eye of law.

11. The case law cited by learned
counsel for the petitioners are fully
applicable in the present matter as deposit
of remaining 3/4th amount by respondent
no.5 is beyond 15 days and fact of deposit
is admitted to both parties, as such, there is
no option except to hold that the auction
held is nullity and property should be resold.

12. So far as the limitation question in
filing the objection under Rule 285 I of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules is concerned, the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Prithvipat (supra) has held that proceeding
under Rule 285 I of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules
are judicial proceedings, as such, unless
Section 5 of Limitation Act will be
applicable to the proceeding under Section
285 I of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules but this
Court while deciding the case in Parvinder
Kaur
(supra)
has
not
taken
into
consideration the Division Bench of this
Court in Prithvipat (supra), as such, in
view of Division Bench decision of this
Court rendered in Prithvipat (supra), it will
be held that provision of Section 5 of
Limitation Act will be applicable to the
proceeding under Rule 285 I of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Rules but in place of remanding the
matter before the courts below for deciding
the objection / revision afresh, it will be
appropriate to hold that the proceeding of
auction is null and void as there is clear
violation of Rule 285 E of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Rules.

13.

The
alternative
argument
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioners is that even if it is found that
Section 5 of Limitation Act is not
applicable to the proceeding under Rule
285 I of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, this
Court in the case of Kunwar Mohan
Swarup (supra) has held that direct writ
petition is also maintainable under Article
226 of the Constitution of India if there is
violation of Rule 285 E of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Rules. The argument advanced by learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
has
got
substance and the impugned auction
proceeding cannot be sustained in the eye
of law due to violation of the mandatory
provision contained under Rule 285 E of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules.

14. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case as well as ratio of
law laid down by the Apex Court as well as
by this Court, the impugned order dated
11.10.2021 passed by the Board of
Revenue and order dated 15.6.1981 passed
by the Commissioner are liable to be set
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aside and are hereby set aside. Sale
proceeding / auction held on 8.10.1975 and
its confirmation on 17.10.1975 are held to
be null and void. Respondents are directed
to re-sale the property in dispute in
accordance
with
law.
Sale
held
on
8.10.1975 and the subsequent proceeding
will not confer any right on respondent
no.5.

12. The writ petition stands allowed.

13. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 152
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 30 of 2022

Hardik Trading ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Akhilesh Kumar Kalra, Avinash Chandra,
Narendra Shanker Shukla, Pooja SIngh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Neerav
Chitravanshi,
Puneet
Chandra, Rani Singh, Samanvya Dhar
Dwivedi

Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 -
Writ Petition - maintainability - locus -
nature of the prerogative remedy of a
mandatory order to perform a public duty
by the public authorities arising from law
and contract are distinct - For binding the
State under the obligation of performance
of a contract, firstly the State ought to be
a party expressly and secondly there
ought
not
to
be
a
situation
of
determination of disputed questions of
facts - In the present case, the petitioner,
a firm, was awarded work by the U.P.
Rajya
Karamchari
Kalyan
Nigam
(respondent no. 3) - Neither the State of
U.P. nor the Mission Director, National
Health Mission were privy to the contract -
writ petition filed by the petitioner, who is
just subcontractor / agent of opposite
party no.3 praying for direction to the
States to make payment of amount to him
for work done by it - opposite party no. 3
for meeting the obligation of making
payment to the petitioner chose not to
institute
any
proceeding
against
the
State/Center - Held - petitioner for the
purpose
of
excecuting
the
work
of
opposite party no. 3 was not more than a
selective choice
& that too without
following any tender process
- real
contract
remains
enforceable
at
the
instance of opposite party no. 3 who has
chosen to remain dormant against the
State - writ petition dismissed (Para 14,
15)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs
U.O.I. & ors. (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 728

2. Bio Tech System Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2021(1)
AWC 92

3. Lalloo Ji Rajiv Chandra and Sons Vs
Meladhikari Prayagraj, Mela Authority & ors.
2019(2) AWC 1750

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

1. This is a writ petition instituted by
the sub-contractor or agent of opposite
party no.3 praying for the relief as under :-

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to
make payment of the admitted amount to
the petitioner for work done by it, which