The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee (UPCC) to pay to the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) entire due of Rs 266 lakh along with an interest of five percent from the date it was due within a period of three months, for using its buses and taxis for its political purposes between 1981-89, the period during which the Congress party was in power in the State.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manish Kumar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by UP Congress Committee.

The petitioner, a national political party, has approached the Court challenging the recovery notice dated 10.11.1998 issued by Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow. The said proceedings are initiated at the instance of respondent no 4 Managing Director, UPSRTC, which claims that an amount of Rs 2,68,29,879.78 is due on the petitioner which UPSRTC is entitled to recover.

The amount due is claimed to be of bills raised against petitioner for use of buses and taxies from UPSRTC by petitioner for its purposes when its Government was in power in the State of UP.

When the petition was filed, the sole ground taken in the writ petition was that the amount cannot be recovered under Section 3 of the U.P Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, as there is no agreement relating to any loan to be recovered as land revenue or advance or grant or relating to credit in respect of, or relating to higher purchase of goods sold to petitioner by U.P.S.R.T.C which would empower the respondents to recover the said sum under Section 3(1) of Act of 1972.

Though, in the petition it was claimed that the amount is neither due to be paid by petitioner to the respondents nor is the same recoverable as arrears of land revenue, however, there are no details in the writ petition as to why the said amount is not due to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent Corporation. Only submission made in the petition is that the amount is being recovered as political vendetta and with a view to bring the petitioner under political pressure.

The matter is pending since the year 1998 and after 25 years also it could not be settled between the parties.

The Court noted that,

From the record filed by the parties before this Court, more particularly, documents filed along with the counter affidavit of Mazid Ali along with application dated 02.11.2011, it is apparent that vehicles were provided on rent for the political rallies and activities of petitioner by UPSRTC.

Letter dated 02.04.1981 written by Up Pradhan Prabandhak (Sanchalan), U.P.S.R.T.C shows that a bill of Rs 6,21,692.55/- was raised on 02.04.1981 for kisan rally organized by petitioner on 16.02.1981; similarly another communication dated 16.12.1984 shows that a bill of Rs 8,69,045.31/- is due for providing vehicles for ferrying people to pay homage on 19.11.1984 to the ashes of late Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Another communication of December, 1984 is for carrying people on 20.10.1984 to a venue being visited by the Prime Minister.

Again by communication dated 09.09.1987 a bill was raised on account of the visit of the Prime Minister on 01.08.1987 at Allahabad. The said bills remained pending upon the petitioner. Again a communication dated 02.09.1987 is made reminding petitioner for amount due against petitioner and for payment thereof. Again a communication dated 17.02.1989 was issued detailing all the pending bills, which till then were of Rs 68,89,860.86./- The same also notes that an advance earlier given by receipt dated 27.10.1988 of Rs 10 Lakhs and vide receipt dated 29.10.1988 of Rs1,50,000, total 11,50,000/- is adjusted and thereafter an amount of Rs 57,39,860.86 is due.

Thereafter, again communication dated 18.12.1989 raising a bill of Rs 1,29,981.65/- on account of the visit of the Prime Minister at Kannauj on 31.08.1989 was made. Further, a bill of Rs 52,828/- for the same visit of the Prime Minister dated 31.08.1989 at Kannauj was raised. All the said documents clearly denote that petitioner while being a ruling party in the State of U.P availed facilities of vehicles for its political activities from UPSRTC. The same at times were on the directions of the then Chief Minister or Minister concerned. It had also paid some advance money on two occasions.

However, remaining bills were left pending, though repeated reminders were sent to the petitioner. There is nothing on record denying specific details given in the aforesaid communications. A very vague stand is taken by the petitioner in its rejoinder affidavit which is already quoted above, that bills are concocted and false. There is no denial of the receipts specifically mentioned to in the communications as well as assurance letter dated 23.04.1988 given by Sri Jagat Pal Singh, General Secretary of petitioner for payment of dues.

Thus, petitioner fails to satisfy on record that it had not utilized vehicles provided by respondent no 4 on its request, be it on direction of Chief Minister or Minister concerned, who also belonged to the petitioner political party. The said vehicles were used for the political gatherings/activities of the petitioner.

“In this case, the political party in power had exercised its dominant position and utilized public property for its political purposes. The bills were raised to the petitioner political party but it ignored to pay the same and, while the earlier dues were pending, again being in power it availed facilities from the respondent U.P.S.R.T.C without paying its dues. Merely by stating that after change of government due to political vendetta the amount is wrongly being recovered or taking a technical ground that amount cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, it can not be granted liberty to escape its liability to pay its bills. There is no doubt that the question of recovery of public money is involved in the case, which is used for political purposes by the petitioner, therefore, petitioner is bound to pay the said amount. The amount is pending for around 25-30 years and is not cleared by the petitioner as yet.

Petitioner showed its intention when it had filed the petition and obtained interim order but for the last 25 years it has not acted in furtherance of the assurance given on the first date of hearing. Even though the amount is not recoverable under the provisions of Act of 1972 but for the reasons discussed above, the Court does not find it a fit case for exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of petitioner”, the Court observed.

“In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, more particularly in view of judgments passed in Shangrila Food Products Ltd (supra) and Ramesh Chandra Sanka and Others (supra), petitioner is directed to pay to the respondents U.P.S.R.T.C entire due of Rs 266 Lakhs along with an interest of 5% from the date it is due within a period of three months”, the order read.

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has expressed strong displeasure over frequent traffic jams at the Polytechnic intersection as well as the Shaheed Path-Ayodhya Road intersection.

The Court has issued a notice to the officers of the state government and other concerned departments for non-compliance of the order passed in this regard five years ago, holding them guilty of contempt prima facie.

A Single Bench of Justice Alok Mathur passed this order while hearing a Contempt Application filed by Sanjay Kumar Verma.

The Court has taken suo moto cognizance concerning the traffic situation in and around the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, especially, with regard to traffic congestion at polytechnic crossing on the Faizabad Road as well as intersection of Faizabad Road and Shaheed Path in front of the High Court. Various State agencies had filed affidavits on behalf of the opposite parties addressing the concern shown by the High Court.

The Court noted that,

Affidavit filed by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Limited through Managing Director indicates that a Traffic Superintendent has been posted in order to check any unauthorized parking by vehicles particularly at the Polytechnic circle at Faizabad Road, Lucknow and written instructions had also been issued to that effect. The affidavit filed by Nagar Nigam, Lucknow disclosed that steps have been taken for removing any encroachment and to ensure that the roads are cleared off for free flow of traffic.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court directs BHU to form panel of experts to look into claims in plea

Similarly, Lucknow Development Authority had also filed an affidavit stating that steps have been taken in order to ensure that vehicles are parked at parking places and drive undertaken for removal of encroachment. The affidavit on behalf of Principal Secretary, Home Department by Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of U.P. indicates that consultations have been made with Central Road Research, New Delhi to ensure that the over-bridge near the Government Polytechnic, Lucknow is maintained and the traffic measures are undertaken so as to ensure that the traffic congestion is avoided.

The Division Bench had also taken note of the personal affidavit filed by Arvind Kumar, Principal Secretary, Home Department, U.P indicating that police personnel have been deputed but on account of their shortage the control of traffic is being dealt with the staff available and additional and additional Home Guards have also been deployed for the said purpose.

The Court observed that it was not satisfied and not much substantial progress has been made in the matter as there does not appear to be complete coordination between the various departments of the State Government in order to rectify the deficiencies that continue to add to the existing traffic problem in the city of Lucknow.

Also Read: Supreme Court issues an interim direction to State Election Commission of Madhya Pradesh for local election

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the situation has gone from bad to worse and the traffic at the Polytechnic Crossing and the traffic congestion has increased by leaps and bounds and neither is there adequate police personnel deployed to control the traffic resulting in traffic jam which take long time for the Advocates/general public to cross the said crossing and reach High Court. Similar is the situation at the crossing where the Shaheed Path meets near the High Court building.

It has been alleged that the directions of this Court have been defied and despite direction of the writ Court not much has been done and the situation has even gone worse.

It is further submitted that during the night the traffic jam runs a few kilometers at the Shaheed Path restraining free inflow of traffic on the said road.

It is also submitted that in case adequate steps are not taken immediately looking into the regular addition of vehicles in the city and haphazard manner of parking of commercial vehicles like tempos, buses and rickshaws the arterial roads remain blocked leading to frequent traffic jams.

Also Read: Top-notch Jurists talk on former CJI MNR Venkatachaliah whose idiom was a law during 82nd Skoch Summit, India Law Forum & LITFest

“It is thus noticed that prima facie the directions of the writ Court for alleviating traffic problems have not been complied by any of the respondent-authorities and, hence, a prima facie case of contempt is made out”, the Court observed.

The Court issued the notice to the respondents.

“Let response be filed by all the opposite parties by the next date of listing with regard to compliance of the directions issued by the writ Court vide its order dated 5.7.2017 passed in PIL Civil Case No 12106 of 2017 as well as further directions issued subsequently.

List this case on 13.5.2022 on which date an affidavit of compliance shall be filed by the opposite parties to indicate as to what measures have been taken by them for compliance of the order of the writ Court. Affidavit of compliance to be filed by respondent No1(Rajendra Pratap Singh, M.D.U.P. Road Transport Corporation) shall also indicate as to how passengers are being allowed to board and deboard from public transport buses run by U.P.S.R.T.C at the crossings despite clear direction of the Court and what measures have been taken by them in this regard ?”

-the order reads.