# Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar & Anr v. District and Session Judge, Muzaffarnagar & Anr

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1149
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-08-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43917 of 2014
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/zila-panchayat-muzaffarnagar-anr-v-district-and-session-judge-muzaffarnagar-anr-43106
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-read with
General Rule Criminal-Rule 85-Claim by Zila
Panchayat-whatsoever fine realized
by
court-be remitted in account of Zila
Parishad-held-distinction between the fine
realized in criminal prosecution shall go in
treasury under Rule 72-but the Court not
obliged to transmit in fund of local bodies-in
absence of such provision in adhiniyamclaim of panchayat -not acceptable.

Held: Para-14
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
been unable to show any such provision
which
may
directly
and
specifically
authorise the Zila Panchayat to receive
the amount of penalty realised as fine in
a criminal prosecution by a court of
competent jurisdiction according to Rule
85 of General Rules Criminal. It is only
such fines that can be credited as
required by law. In the instant case in
the absence of any such law having been
pointed out which may authorise the Zila
Panchayat to claim such fines to be
deposited in its funds as a matter of
right, the prayer made by the petitioner
Zila Panchayat cannot be acknowledged
or accepted in law.

## Text

3 All].Zila Panchayat Muzaffarnagar & Anr. Vs. District and Session Judge, Muzaffarnagar & Anr. 1149

10. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed in the aforesaid terms. There
shall be no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP
SAHI, .J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43917 of 2014

Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
District and Session Judge, Muzaffarnagar
& Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sri Ashish Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Manish Kumar Goyal

Constitution of India, Art.-226-read with
General Rule Criminal-Rule 85-Claim by Zila
Panchayat-whatsoever fine realized
by
court-be remitted in account of Zila
Parishad-held-distinction between the fine
realized in criminal prosecution shall go in
treasury under Rule 72-but the Court not
obliged to transmit in fund of local bodies-in
absence of such provision in adhiniyamclaim of panchayat -not acceptable.

Held: Para-14
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
been unable to show any such provision
which
may
directly
and
specifically
authorise the Zila Panchayat to receive
the amount of penalty realised as fine in
a criminal prosecution by a court of
competent jurisdiction according to Rule
85 of General Rules Criminal. It is only
such fines that can be credited as
required by law. In the instant case in
the absence of any such law having been
pointed out which may authorise the Zila
Panchayat to claim such fines to be
deposited in its funds as a matter of
right, the prayer made by the petitioner
Zila Panchayat cannot be acknowledged
or accepted in law.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Manish Goyal for the respondents. This
matter had been adjourned to enable the
learned counsel for the petitioner to point
out the provisions under which the Zila
Panchayat is claiming its rights and powers
to receive the amount of fine that is realised
as penalty in criminal prosecutions by a
court of competent jurisdiction.

2. The petitioner had earlier filed
Writ Petition No. 24330 of 2014 and the
same was permitted to be withdrawn to
enable the learned counsel to file a better
writ petition after explaining the powers
and rights under which such payment is
sought to be invoked by the petitioner to
realise fine and seek deposit thereof with
the Zila Panchayat. The judgment is
quoted herein under:-

"Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.

After the matter was heard and having
perused Rules 72 and 85 of the General
Rules (Criminal), we find that the writ
petition appears to be for the purpose of
claiming a substantive right to receive the
amount of fine which is realized for violation
of the bye-laws of the Zila Panchayat.

The writ as framed, in our opinion,
does not take the point home and,
therefore,
learned
counsel
for
the
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner prays that he may be permitted
to withdraw the writ petition and file a
better writ petition founded on such rights
that may flow in favour of the Zila
Panchayat as a local body as protected
under Chapter IX-A of the Constitution of
India.

Dimissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Order Date :- 15.7.2014"

3. This writ petition has therefore
again been filed contending that on a
perusal of Rule 85 readwith Rule 72 of
the General Rules Criminal 1977, the fine
which is deposited in courts in such
proceedings has to be sent to the
municipality concerned. Rule 72 and Rule
85 of the General Rules Criminal are
extracted herein under:-

"72. Deposit of fine etc. paid into
Court - when the amount of any fine,
compensation or other sum, deposit,
penalty or fee is paid into Court, the
Presiding Officer shall, as soon as may
be, send the money to the Nazir through
the Criminal Ahalmad, for onward
transmission to the nearest treasury or
sub-treasury. The money so sent shall be
accompanied by an invoice in duplicate in
Form (Part IX, No. 74) signed by the
Presiding Officer himself. In the case of
any sum which is to be credited as a
deposit the invoice shall be made out in
triplicate. One copy of the invoice shall be
returned by the officer-in-charge of the
treasury or sub-treasury concerned with
an endorsement showing receipt of the
amount.

85. Statement of fine etc.- A monthly
return of all amounts realised by criminal
courts as fines and credited as required by
law to a Municipal or Corporation fund,
shall be transmitted to the Municipal
Board for Corporation concerned.

The return shall be made in from
(Part IX, No. 77)."

4. Learned counsel submits that
Rule 85 extracted hereinabove clearly
demonstrates that a monthly return of all
amounts realised by criminal courts as
fine have to be credited to a municipal
corporation or board as the case may be.

5. The contention is that since the
Zila Panchayat has now a constitutional
status
under
Part
-
IX-A of
the
Constitution of India, the fines that are
realised, form part of the corporate funds
of the Zila Panchayat and it would be
unconstitutional on the part of the
respondents not to release the same in
favour of the Zila Panchayat.

6. Learned counsel then has invited
the attention of the Court to Sections 240
to 249 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra
Panchayat
and
Zila
Panchayat
Adhiniyam, 1961 to contend that any
infringement of the bye-laws invites
prosecution and Section 247 empowers
the Zila Panchayat to undertake such
prosecution. Not only this, the power to
compound offences is also applicable and
consequently if a complaint is filed under
the aforesaid provisions before a criminal
court then any fine imposed and realised
has to be deposited in the municipal funds
account. The contention further is that
Section 249 clearly takes care of the
situation which runs as follows:-

"249. Compensation for damage to
property vested in the Zila Panchayat.- If
3 All].Zila Panchayat Muzaffarnagar & Anr. Vs. District and Session Judge, Muzaffarnagar & Anr. 1151
through an act, neglect or default on
account whereof a person has incurred a
penalty imposed by or under this Act any
damage to the property of the Zila
Panchayat or any Kshettra Panchayat has
been caused, the person incurring such
penalty shall be liable to make good such
damage as well as to pay such penalty and
the amount of damage shall, in cause of
dispute, be determined by the Magistrate
by whom the person incurring such
penalty is convicted, and on non-payment
of such amount on demand the same shall
be levied by distress; and such Magistrate
shall issue his warrant accordingly."

7. The incurring of a penalty and
damages under the aforesaid Section
obliges the person against whom such
penalty has been imposed to make good
any damage caused to the Zila Panchayat
and
in
the
case
of
dispute
the
determination has to be done by the
Magistrate and the penalty is to be
determined accordingly. In the event of
non-payment the Magistrate has been
empowered to take coercive steps and
realise the same by distress.

8. The question raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is about the levy
and deposit of such penalty in the shape
of fines in such proceedings as per
General Rules Criminal, 1977 referred to
hereinabove with the Zila Panchayat.

9. He urges that even in relation to
compounding of offences sub-section (3)
of Section 248 authorises that where sums
have been paid by way of composition the
same shall be credited to the Zila
Panchayat or the local body concerned.

10. Sri Goyal on the other hand
submits that the statement of fine etc. as
contained in Rule 85 of General Rules
Criminal
clearly
visualizes
the
transmission of the amount realized as
fine only "as required by law". He
submits that whatever provisions for
realisation have been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in
respect of fines by compounding are in
proceedings directly undertaken by the
Zila Panchayat and not through courts.

11. The issue presently involved is
with
regard
to
fines
realised
in
prosecutions through the criminal courts.
He therefore contends that this clear
distinction is already explained with the
aid of Rule 85 itself which specifies that
only such amounts shall be transmitted
which are required by law to be done as
such. He therefore submits that a fine
realised in a criminal prosecution by
courts have only to be deposited in the
treasury as per Rule 72 of the 1977 Rules
and the court is not obliged to transmit
such amounts to the Zila Panchayat as
claimed in the present writ petition.

12. Having considered the aforesaid
submissions raised and having perused
the provisions that have been pointed out,
it is clear that there are two sets of
proceedings, one that are conducted by
the Zila Panchayat itself in relation
whereto the realisation has to be made
and the amount has to be deposited in the
Zila Panchayat Funds.

13. However, where complaints are
lodged in criminal courts then in that
event
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Kshettra
Panchayat
and
Zila
Panchayat
Adhiniyam, 1961 does not specify the
procedure of such a fine realised by the
court to be transmitted to the Zila
Panchayat Funds. Where fiscal matters are
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
involved, the Court has to strictly construe
the provisions and no addition or assumption
of powers can be impliedly acknowledged.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has been unable to show any such provision
which may directly and specifically authorise
the Zila Panchayat to receive the amount of
penalty realised as fine in a criminal
prosecution by a court of competent
jurisdiction according to Rule 85 of General
Rules Criminal. It is only such fines that can
be credited as required by law. In the instant
case in the absence of any such law having
been pointed out which may authorise the
Zila Panchayat to claim such fines to be
deposited in its funds as a matter of right, the
prayer made by the petitioner Zila Panchayat
cannot be acknowledged or accepted in law.

15. The writ petition lacks merit and
is accordingly dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44867 of 2014

Anubhav Jaiswal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mahboob Ahmad

Electric Supply Code 2005-Clause 4.3-New
electric connection-premises subjected to
transfer-petitioner 4th purchaser-where the
premises sub-divided-liability shall be fixed
pro-rata
basis-petitioner
himself
not
provided
complete
information-order
passed by authority can not be faultedhowever if complete information furnishedafter holding enquiry-liability to be fixed in
terms of provision of code-petition disposed
of.

Held: Para-11
We have perused the impugned order, and
we do not find any such exercise having
been undertaken presumably on account of
the fact that the petitioner himself did not
provide the entire information. In the
circumstances the impugned order ex-facie
cannot be faulted with, but in view of the
provisions of Clause 4.3 of the Code, 2005,
the matter requires a fresh determination
after putting the original owner Shri Islam
Beg as well to notice.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. This case has certain peculiar facts
with regard to the liability and apportionment
of electricity dues in respect of a premise that
came to be succeeded by several owners.

2. The original owner of the premise
Shri Islam Beg sold part of the premises in
favour of one Jitendra Kumar Srivastava in
the year 2008. Shri Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava in turn sold it to one Smt. Swati
Chaurasiya in the year 2009, who in turn
sold it to one Shri R.K. Malviya in the year
2011. The petitioner is the fourth purchaser
of part of the said premises under a sale deed
dated 12/4/2012. The petitioner wanted to
absolve himself of any liability of electricity
dues and obtain a new connection for the
portion which he has purchased.

3. An inspection was carried out and a
theft proceeding was initiated against the
petitioner. The petitioner appears to have filed
Writ Petition No.30684/2013 which was
disposed of on 10/12/2013 by the following
judgment: