The court mandated adherence to procedural fairness by the Bill Verification Committee when assessing claims for payment regarding the accommodation provided to political protectees.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Sekhri, J.

01. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for the issuance of appropriate writs to the respondents for the clearance of their pending liability towards hiring the petitioner Hotel for protected political persons.

CASE OF THE PETITIONER

02. Case of the petitioner is that pursuant to a circular dated 07.11.2020 and communication dated 12.12.2020 and various communications issued thereafter from time to time by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, it was requested to provide accommodation, on sharing basis, to protected persons including Panches, Sarpanches, Municipal Councillors etc., and police personnels/security forces w.e.f. 18.11.2020. Subsequently, the accommodation came to be de-hired by the Divisional Commissioner w.e.f. 05.10.2021, in terms of his order dated 01.10.2021. However, immediately after de-hiring at the Divisional Level, a fresh requisition was made at the District Level by respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, vide his communication dated 27.10.2021, by virtue of which four Hotels, including the Hotel in question, came to be re-hired for accommodating protected persons of District Srinagar including Sarpanches, Councilors, DDC Members, contesting candidates etc. The petitioner raised bills, for the periods Hotel premises came to be hired, first at the Divisional level and later at the District level, however, grievance of the petitioner is that its payment is not being cleared despite the fact that hiring charges were verified and approved by the competent authorities and funds released by the Government.

03. It is further contended that when representative of the Hotel approached the office of Divisional Commissioner, he was informed that based on an ex- parte report of a Committee, amounts of Rs. 51,756/- and Rs. 37,980/- had been approved for payment on account of boarding and lodging charges w.e.f. 06.10.2021 to 31.05.2022.

04. According to the petitioner, the accommodation provided to the protectees at the behest of the Divisional Commissioner, and respondent no. 2- Deputy Commissioner, was being guarded by J&K Police/security forces round the clock and two rooms remained under their continuous occupation for the entire hiring period. According to the petitioner, after the Hotel rooms came to be allocated and provided to the protectees, on the strength of hiring orders issued by competent authorities of the respondents, it is not open for them to rely on an ex parte report of a committee, constituted much after the Hotel came to be de-hired and contend that rooms were not in actual occupation of the protectees. It is contention of the petitioner that bill verification committee was constituted by the respondents with a view to defeat its legitimate claim.

05. The petitioner for the protection and preservation of its right to hold, the property in the manner provided under law, has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court, primarily on the ground that bill verification committee constituted by Financial Commissioner (Additional Chief Secretary), Home was a colorable exercise of power with a view to reduce its liability, and that ex parte report of the committee, is violative of principles of natural justice.

06. Petitioner has prayed for the issuance of appropriate writs for the quashment of order dated 05.11.2022, by virtue of which Bill Verification Committee came to be constituted, quashment of report dated 10.02.2023 of the said Committee, and a mandamus to the respondents to clear its pending liability.

COUNTER

07. Per contra, respondents though admitted that pursuant to the directions of the Divisional Commissioner, vide No. 361-Div.Com/Estt. of 2021 dated 01.10.2021, respondent no. 2, vide his order dated 27.10.2021, hired the petitioner Hotel, for providing accommodation to political protectees and that it came to be de-hired w.e.f. 01.06.2022, but controverted inflated claim of the petitioner.

08. It is contention of the respondents that for the corresp