ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.K. Misra, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Khanna appearing for respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the recovery proceedings initiated against him by Citation No. 072219, dated 30th October, 2002.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition briefly stated are : Petitioner is one of the Directors of a Private Limited Company namely Allahabad Fertiliser Sales Private Limited. A loan of Rs. 73,00,000/ -was taken from the respondent No. 3 by the aforesaid Company. The Company failed to repay the loan as a consequence of which proceedings for recovery was initiated against the Directors. A citation dated 14th October, 1997 for an amount of Rs. 1,46,40,165.08 was issued against which Writ Petition No. 42659 of 1997 was filed. The writ petition was finally decided on 24th April, 1998 by which Directors were permitted to sell of its Company and its assets. However, the Directors were unable to sell the Company and repay the loan. Another citation dated 19.7.1999 for an amount of Rs. 1,87,32,191.30 was issued in pursuance of which petitioner was arrested by the Revenue Authority on 10th August, 1999 and was detained in custody till 25th October, 1999. Another citation dated 13.6.2001 was issued for an amount of Rs. 4,29,09,935,31. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 22948 of 2001 against the citation dated 13.6.2001 in which an interim order was passed by this Court on 20th June, 2001 staying the arrest of the petitioner till 10th September, 2001. It has been stated in Paragraph 12 of the writ petition that although the aforesaid wit petition is still pending but the same has become in fructuous as a fresh citation has been issued by the respondent on 30th October, 2002 being citation No. 072219 for an amount of Rs. 4,29,09,935.31. The said citation dated 30th October, 2002 has been challenged by the petitioner by means of this writ petition. Sri A.K. Misra, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, having been already detained in civil prison from 10.8.1999 to 25.10.1999, he cannot be again arrested on the basis of citation dated 30.10.2002. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that maximum period prescribed under Section 281 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is fifteen days hence detention beyond the aforesaid 15 days is not permissible. In support of his submission Misra placed reliance on Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1969 ALJ 25, Sangam lal Gupta v. Sales Tax Officer and others and 1977 AWC 711, Rasul Bux v. State of U.P. and others. Sri Misra has also placed reliance on Apex Court judgment reported in AIR 1953 Supreme Court 95, The Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Gutta Mill Workers' Union. Sri Anurag Khanna appearing for the respondent No. 3 refuting the submission of Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the maximum period of detention prescribed under Section 281 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, is not applicable when the arrest is for different arrears. The contention is that if the arrears sought to be recovered are different there is no prohibition in again detaining the petitioner for realisation of different arrears. He submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in Sangam lal Gupta's case (supra) has laid down the aforesaid proposition when the recovery is for the same arrears. Sri Khanna submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 10th August, 1999 and detained till 25th October, 1999 in pursuance of the citation date 19.7.1999 for an amount of Rs. 1,87,32,191.30 whereas the citation which has been challenged in the present writ petition is dated 30th October, 2002 and is for an amount of Rs. 4.29,09,935.31 plus collection charges. The submission is that since the citation now challenged in the present writ petition is for different amount there is no prohibition in detaining the petitioner under Section 281.
(3.) WE have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the facts brought on the record it is clear that the petitioner was earlier detained in civil prison from 10.8.1999 to 25.10.1999 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,87,32,191.00 in pursuance of the citation dated 19.7.1999. By the present writ petition petitioner is challenging the recover)' proceedings for realisation of an amount of Rs. 4,29,09,935.00 plus collection charges for which citation has been issued on 30th October, 2002. Thus, it is clear that the earlier citation dated 19th July, 1999 was for different arrears and the citation which has now been issued is for a very huge amount of Rs. 4,29,09.935.00. The Division Bench's judgment cited by the Counsel for the petitioner in Sangam lal Gupta v. Sales Tax Officer and others' case (supra) was pertaining to realisation of arrears of Sales Tax. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case had laid down that if a person has been detained in custody for maximum period of fifteen days, he cannot be arrested and detained again in recovery proceedings relating to the same arrears of land revenue. Following was held in the aforesaid case : "But, in our opinion, the total period for which he may be detained in custody in respect of the same arrear cannot exceed fifteen days. Section 148 declares that a defaulter may be detained in custody for fifteen days unless the arrear and the costs of arrest and detention, are paid before the expiry of that period. There is nothing in the provision from which we can infer that the defaulter may be detained in custody for repeated periods of fifteen days until the arrear is paid up. If that inference was possible, we would have to hold that the detaining authority is entitled, so long as it believes that the process of detention would result in the payment of the arrear, to detain the defaulter in custody almost indefinitely provided the successive periods of detention did not exceed fifteen days at a time. A construction such as this would result in serious encroachment upon the liberty of the citizen and we are not prepared to accept that so unlimited an arbitrary power was intended to be conferred upon the detaining authority, specially when the power to detain has been conferred under Rule 47, even upon a Tahsildar and when the only reason for detention is the possibility of the payment of an arrear of land revenue. In our judgment, the period of fifteen days prescribed by Section 148 is the maximum period for which a defaulter may be detained in custody in respect of any arrear. If he has been detained in custody for that period he cannot be arrested and detained again in a recover proceeding relating to the same arrear of land revenue." ;