IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
M.K. HANJURA, J.
M/s. Haji Goods Carrier – Petitioner
Vs.
State and Ors. – Respondent
OWP 1077 of 2017 & c/w OWP 731 of 2017
Decided On : 18-08-2017
Fraud - Transportation Contract - J&K Constitution - Section 103 - [J&K State Road Transport Corporation Act, 2015, Section 26] - The court discussed the fraudulent activities of M/s. Ladakh Road Lines in obtaining transportation contracts and not disbursing payments to other companies. The court also highlighted the limitations of issuing a writ of prohibition in such cases and emphasized that civil disputes should be resolved through appropriate forums.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a transport business owner, alleged fraudulent activities by M/s. Ladakh Road Lines in obtaining transportation contracts and not disbursing payments to other companies. The petitioner sought writs of Prohibition and Mandamus to stop payments to M/s. Ladakh Road Lines and initiate action for recovery of pending amounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claims were civil in nature and should be resolved through appropriate forums. It dismissed the petition and ancillary application for lacking merit and substance.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could issue writs of Prohibition and Mandamus in a case involving fraudulent transportation contracts and non-payment issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the jurisdiction for the grant of writ of prohibition is primarily supervisory and should be used to restrain courts or tribunals from exercising jurisdiction they do not possess. It also highlighted that civil disputes should be resolved through appropriate forums.
Final Decision: The petition and ancillary application were dismissed for lacking merit and substance.
M.K. HANJURA, J.
1. In this writ petition, bearing OWP No. 1077/2017, filed by the petitioner, (M/s. Haji Goods Carrier, through Shri Nazir Ahmad S/O Ghulam Qadir R/O Mehjoor Nagar, Srinagar), under article 226, read with section 103 of the Constitution of J&K, the following reliefs have been claimed :
(i). a writ in the nature of Prohibition be issued in favour of petitioner and against respondents prohibiting respondents especially respondent No.2, Managing Director, Jammu & Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation and respondent No.3, Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Jammu & Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation not to release any payment in favour of private respondent No.6, M/s. Ladakh Road Lines, Fruit Mandi Parimpora, Srinagar.
(ii). A writ of Mandamus be issued in favour of petitioner and against official respondent No.5 to initiate appropriate action against all officials who have been indicted by Central Vigilance Organization in its report.
(iii). A writ of Mandamus in favour of petitioner and against official respondents to initiate action for recovery of amount from Pvt. Respondent (M/s. Ladakh Road Lines) on account of pending challan and till then no payment be released in favour of said transport company.”
2. The grounds urged by the petitioner, Haji Goods Carrier, to seek the indulgence of this Court in granting him the above reliefs, as pleaded by him in his petition, are that he is running a transport business in the State of J&K and for this, he owns a fleet of 20 trucks/vehicles. The J&K State Road Transport Corporation (JKSRTC) invites tenders every year for the supply and utilization of trucks and supplies them to the intending departments, like Food Corporation of India and Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution. These departments utilize his trucks for carriage of various essential items to far flung areas of the State. The payments are released through JKSRTC, which, primarily, associates M/s. Ladakh Road Lines for the utilization of trucks. This is being done illegally and unlawfully with the aim and object to extend undue benefits to him. He has proceeded to state that although M/s. Ladakh Road Lines has an operational license from the statutory authority, yet on the ground they do not own and possess the requisite number of vehicles/trucks. Therefore, the said Road Lines is not in a position to earn a contract for carriage of essential items, which, apart from other material, includes the food grains. To coup up the problem, M/s. Ladakh Road Lines, hires the trucks of various companies including that of his company. It has been further stated that for the years 2014-15 & 2015-16, he (the petitioner), kept his trucks at the disposal of the M/s. Ladakh Road Lines and the said company is in arrears to the tune of Rs.15/- crores. Although the said Road Lines has received the entire amount from the JKSRTC, yet it has not disbursed the amount so received to the companies to whom it owes money. He (the petitioner), filed a detailed representation before the respondent No.3, Managing Director, JKSRTC, wherein he brought into limelight the frauds committed by M/s. Ladakh Road Lines. He also brought it to the notice of the respondent No.3 that M/s. Ladakh Road Lines, has not produced the challans of the vehicles for an accumulated amount of Rs. 12/- crores and without asking the said Road Lines to submit the details, the respondent No.3 is bent upon to release the amount in his favour. He (the petitioner), has further stated that M/s. Ladakh Road Lines, has admitted the pendency of challans having not been submitted by them and despite that they claim the release of Rs. 12/- crores, without taking into account the loss caused to the State ex chequer. His complaint has been acknowledged by the respondent 1 to 5 but they have not initiated any action into it and as a consequence thereof, the public money will go down the drains. This is being done in collaboration with some higher ups. T
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.