Equitable considerations and public interest may override technical grounds in the recovery of dues, and the court may direct payment based on principles of fairness and justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri I.H. Farooqui, learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 U.P.S.R.T.C. and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Learned counsel for petitioner along with his oral submissions has also provided written submissions dated 23.08.2023.

2. Petitioner, a national political party has approached this 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, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C.) which claims that an amount of Rs. 2,68,29,879.78/- is due on the petitioner which U.P.S.R.T.C. is entitled to recover. The amount due is claimed to be of bills raised against petitioner for use of buses and taxies from U.P.S.R.T.C. by petitioner for its purposes when its Government was in power in State of U.P.

3. 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, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 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 paragraph-1 of the writ 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 paragraph-17 of the writ petition is that the amount is being recovered as political vendetta and with a view to bring petitioner under political pressure. When the petition was placed before this Court for the first time on 26.11.1998 this Court passed the following order:

“The petitioner’s counsel is permitted to amend the designation of the opposite party no. 1.

Sri Vishal Singh accepts notice on behalf of opposite party no. 4. The learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 to 3.

The parties counsel agree that their client will sit and settle their dispute amicably. In these circumstances, the opposite party no. 4 is directed to show the accounts to the petitioner on a fixed date as agreed by the parties.

List in January, 99. The recovery proceedings shall remain stayed till the next listing.”

4. The matter is pending since the year 1998 and after 25 years also it could not be settled between the parties. Hence, this Court has taken up the matter to be decided on merits.

5. Counter affidavits are filed by respondent no. 1 State of U.P. as well as respondent no. 4 U.P.S.R.T.C. in support of the demand. The counter affidavit filed by Sri Mazid Ali, Principal Secretary, Transport Department of Government of U.P. along with application dated 02.11.2011 provides a detailed chart of the demand raised against the petitioner and claims that between the years 1981 and 1989 vehicles in the nature of buses, taxi etc. were provided to the petitioner party by U.P.S.R.T.C. on directions of Chief Minister and Minister concerned, who all belonged to petitioner party, for which bills were regularly raised and were liable to be paid by petitioner. The same remained pending and, hence, now recovery certificate is issued against petitioner. Total amount as per chart filed as annexure CA-1 is Rs. 266.72 lakhs. (Dues were of Rs. 268.30 Lakhs out of which Rs. 1.58 Lakhs was recovered through Tehsildar in 2003) Number of communications made by the officers of respondent U.P.S.R.T.C. to the petitioner from the year 1981 to 1990 are also filed raising bills and repeatedly requesting for payment of the same. Similarly a counter affidavit is filed by Sri P.K. Srivastava, G