# U.P.S.R.T.C. and others v. Mohd. Rais Khan

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 335
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-04-23
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No.972 of 2007
- **Bench:** R.K. Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-s-r-t-c-and-others-v-mohd-rais-khan-41474
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Sri Somvir
Sri K. Zaidi
Sri Mohd Ali
Sri C.K.Parekh
C.S.C.

U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959,
Section
173-readwith
with
U.P.
Municipal Corporation (Assessment and
Collection of Tax on advertisement)
Rules,
2009-Demand
of
Tax
on
advertisement on exhibition, display any
advertisement
over
any
land
wall,
hoarding or structure on public or
private place-objection the licence for
advertisement-should
not
to
given
through public auction misconceived.

Held: Para 10

The purpose of public auction is to fetch
maximum revenue as public interest is
paramount. Awarding a contract of sale
or leasing out property of a Government
or a public authority for a considering
less
than
the
highest
competitive
amount
is
not
in
public
interest.
Therefore,
obviously,
the
procedure
provided under the Rules for granting
permission for advertising through public
auction or by inviting tenders cannot be
said to be suffering from any vice of
unreasonableness.
Case law discussed-
 AIR 1985 SC 1147, AIR 1986 SC 1158,
2002(3) SCC 496, (1989)4 SCC 155.

## Text

1 All] U.P.S.R.T.C. and others V. Mohd. Rais Khan
335
6. Parties are at liberty to exchange
further affidavits by the next date.

7. List on 10.5.2010.

8. Copy of this order be forwarded
to the Secretary, Secondary Education,
Govt. of U.P., Lucknow for necessary
action against the Joint Director of
Education, Varanasi.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.

Special Appeal No.972 of 2007

U.P.S.R.T.C. and others
...Appellants
Versus
Mohd. Rais Khan

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Samir Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri W.H. Khan,
Sri J.H. Khan

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972- Delay in
Payment-Interest claimed on delayed
amount-objection that if not claimed-
earliest possible opportunity can not be
allowed-held amount of gratuity not
given immediate of retired- which forced
the petitioner to approach again and
again-direction
of
12%
interest
by
Single Judge Justified.

Held Para-3
Sri
Samir
Sharma,
learned
counsel
submitted that the claim of interest is hit
by
the
principles
of
constructive
resjudicata as in Writ Petition No. 55594
of 2000, the contesting respondents had
not claimed payment of interest which
should have been claimed in the earlier
writ petition. We find that even though
the contesting respondents had not
claimed payment of interest in the year
2000 in the writ petition filed in the year
2000 but, this court had not adjudicated
the claim regarding payment of gratuity
relating to the contesting respondent.
Moreover, it is not denied that the
contesting
respondent
retired
on
31.1.1999 and the amount of gratuity
was not paid immediately in accordance
with the scheme of Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972, thus, forcing the contesting
respondent to approach this Court on a
number of occasions to get the retiral
dues

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.)

1. The present special appeal has
been filed against the judgment and order
dated 4.4.2007 passed by the learned
single Judge wherein, while allowing the
writ petition preferred by the contesting
respondent, a direction was issued to the
present appellants to pay 12% simple
interest to the respondent on the delayed
payment of gratuity from a date of one
month after his retirement till the amounts
were actually paid. Interest would be
payable on each of the three instalments
of gratuity paid.

2. We have heard Sri Samir Sharma,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Gulrej
Khan
appearing
for
the
respondents
and
have
perused
the
impugned judgment and order dated
4.4.2007 passed by the learned single
Judge giving rise to the present appeal as
also the documents filed along with the
memo of appeal.

3. Sri Samir Sharma, learned
counsel submitted that the claim of
interest is hit by the principles of
constructive resjudicata as in Writ
Petition No. 55594 of 2000, the contesting
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
respondents had not claimed payment of
interest which should have been claimed
in the earlier writ petition. We find that
even though the contesting respondents
had not claimed payment of interest in the
year 2000 in the writ petition filed in the
year 2000 but, this court had not
adjudicated the claim regarding payment
of gratuity relating to the contesting
respondent. Moreover, it is not denied that
the contesting respondent retired on
31.1.1999 and the amount of gratuity was
not paid immediately in accordance with
the scheme of Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972,
thus,
forcing
the
contesting
respondent to approach this Court on a
number of occasions to get the retiral
dues.

4. That being the position, the award
of interest @ 12% on the amount of
gratuity can not be said to be illegal. The
order passed by the learned single Judge
does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
The amount of interest, if not paid, shall
be paid within one month from the date
on which a certified copy of this order is
present before the authority concerned.

5. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTIION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 28.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BE RAJES KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 373 of 2010
and
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 511 of 2010

Taj Advertising, Agra and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.D. Mandhyan
Sri Satish Mandhyan
Sri Sanjeev Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Somvir
Sri K. Zaidi
Sri Mohd Ali
Sri C.K.Parekh
C.S.C.

U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959,
Section
173-readwith
with
U.P.
Municipal Corporation (Assessment and
Collection of Tax on advertisement)
Rules,
2009-Demand
of
Tax
on
advertisement on exhibition, display any
advertisement
over
any
land
wall,
hoarding or structure on public or
private place-objection the licence for
advertisement-should
not
to
given
through public auction misconceived.

Held: Para 10

The purpose of public auction is to fetch
maximum revenue as public interest is
paramount. Awarding a contract of sale
or leasing out property of a Government
or a public authority for a considering
less
than
the
highest
competitive
amount
is
not
in
public
interest.
Therefore,
obviously,
the
procedure
provided under the Rules for granting
permission for advertising through public
auction or by inviting tenders cannot be
said to be suffering from any vice of
unreasonableness.
Case law discussed-
 AIR 1985 SC 1147, AIR 1986 SC 1158,
2002(3) SCC 496, (1989)4 SCC 155.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. All the petitioner in both the writ
petitions are advertising companies/ firms
engaged in the business of advertising by
placing and erecting hoardings on the
public land either of the municipal