Rajiv Sharma and Mahendra Dayal, JJ. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties. Being aggrieved by the non -payment of dues of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2.50 lacs, the instant writ petition has been filed on the ground that the offer of the petitioner was accepted as his bid was low than other contractors. Further, he was permitted to start work. However, without any rhyme and reason, the Chief Development Officer has abruptly demolished the construction done by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of the aforesaid amount. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court vide order dated 20.9.2013 directed the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions from the Chief Development Officer as to why the order passed by the District Magistrate has not been complied with and the petitioner has been denied the dues in question.
(2.) THEREAFTER , the Chief Development Officer has filed his personal affidavit. In para. 4 of the affidavit; he stated as under: 4. That the contents of paragraph 2 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated, hence denied and in reply thereto, it is submitted that the construction work in question in the present matter has no relation with the Chief Development Officer, Ambedkar Nagar and the same relates to the Nagar Palika Parishad Akbarpur, Ambedkar Nagar. It is relevant to mention here that the letter dated 30.10.2009 of the then District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar is concerned with the then Chief Development Officer, Ambedkar Nagar, namely, Sri Rakesh Kumar, but in the present time there are no traces of any construction of toilets or demolition in the office campus of the Chief Development Officer. The answering respondent has taken over the charge of the post of Chief Development Officer, Ambedkar Nagar on 30.9.2013 and no letter dated 2.1.2009 is available in the records of the office of the answering respondent. It is also pertinent to mention here that in accordance with the Government order dated 8.7.1992, the ownership of the development buildings is with the Rural Development Department. Further in accordance with the letter dated 17.3.2009 of the Chief Finance and accounts Officer, Rural Development, U.P. alongwith the Government letter dated 30.1.2009 addressed to all the Chief Development Officers of the State of U.P., the land/office/office campus under the control of the Rural Development Department cannot be allotted for usage of any other department. It is further submitted as per records available in the office of the Chief Development Officer, Ambedkar Nagar, no order/letter regarding sanction of allotment of land for construction of Sulabh Shochlaya from competent level is available. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. We unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the constructed toilets have been demolished by the then Chief Development Officer. As the present Chief Development Officer has, in explicit terms, mentioned in his personal affidavit that neither any construction of toilets or demolition in the office campus of the C.D.O. is carried out by the petitioner nor any entry regarding order issued by the C.D.O. is available. A careful perusal of the record reveals that though the petitioner has been granted some time to file rejoinder affidavit, he chooses not to file it. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in order to grab the amount, the petitioner has set up a story and filed the misconceived writ petition.
(3.) IN a recent decision of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Apex Court has held that the making of patently false statement on oath by the appellant tenure -holders is amazing. The appellants efforts to mislead the authorities and the Courts got transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and the Supreme Court cannot, but treated as reprehensible.;