- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. Smt. Madhu Singh, wife of late Ambarish Singh, resident of Prem Nagar, Bareilly, challenges the notice of auction dated 22-11-1995 contained in Annexure 1 to this petition. She further prays for restraining the Tehsildar, Faridpur, district Bareilly (respondent No. 2) and Regional Transport Officer, Bareilly ' (respondent No. 4) from selling peti tioner's bus No. URW 411 by auction to be held on 6-1-1996.
(2.) SHORT facts leading to this petition are as under : (i) Late Ambarish Singh, husband of the petitioner-Smt. Madhu Singh, took a loan amounting to Rs. 18, 525 from Bank of Baroda (respondent No. 3) in the year 1985 for purchasing an oil expeller which was installed in his village Richa where his agricultural landed property situate. He died in the year 1986 and the total amount which he had borrowed could not be repaid to the Bank. (ii) After the death of Ambarish Singh, petitioner Madhu Singh's relations became strained with her father-in-law Ahibaran Singh, with the result Smt. Madhu Singh had to leave village Richa and to shift and settle down at Bareilly, as a result of which Ahibaran Singh, the father-in-law took over possession of the oil expeller and other property belonging to the peti tioner, and thus she could not repay the loan to the bank. (iii) It is stated that petitioner's husband was also carrying on business of transport on the strength of a stage carriage permit granted in his favour by the Regional Transport Officer, Bareilly respondent No. 4. The income derived out of this bus was the only source of petitioner's livelihood. (iv) It is further stated that on 15-11-1995 the petitioner's said bus (URW 411) was seized by the respondents Collector, Bareilly and Tehsildar, Bareilly in order to auction the same for realisation of the loan borrowed and could not be paid by the petitioner's husband from the Bank of Baroda. (v) After seizure the bus, a notice for auction was served on the petitioner on 22-11-1995 and the date of auction was fixed on 1-12-1995, but it is stated that 1-12-1995 was adjourned to 12-12-1995 and again 12-12-1995 was adjourned to 5-1-1996. (vi) On coming to know about the auction etc. the petitioner con tacted respondent No. 2 Teshildar, Tehsil Faridpur, district Bareilly and submitted that she has neither received any citation nor any recovery certificate is issued by the Collector in respect of recovery of the said loan as arrears of land revenue, and on enquiry she also came to know that total recovery is for an amount of Rs. 54,000. It is also averred that she deposited Rs. 10,000 on 9-12-1995 vide receipt contained in Annoxure-2 and vide Annexure-3 dated 11-12-1995 a detailed representation to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance), Bareitly was made stating that she is further read to deposit Rs. 20,000 and for the balance amount she may be permitted to deposit in instalments of Rs. 5,000 per month, but the bus which is the only source of her livelihood may be released. (vii) It is also averred that on receipt of the said representation, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance) directed the respon dent No. 2 to grant time subject to petitioner's depositing half of the amount. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner further deposited Rs. 11,000 on 12-12- 1995 and Rs. 10,000 on 15-12-1995 vide Annexure-4 and 5 respectively to this petition. In this way, the petitioner deposited total Rs. 31,000, which is more than half of the total impugned recovery. (viii) It is further submitted that in between the respondent No. 4 Regional Transport Officer, Bareilly intimated Tehsildar. Faridpur that an amount of Rs. 42,282 is due against the petitioner towards passenger tax, road tax against said bus No. URW 411, and therefore it was directed that the said bus may not be released to the petitioner until this amount as well is recovered from or paid by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that in respect of passenger tax, road tax, no notice for assessment proceeding was ever issued to her and as such recovery of the said amount by way of auctioning the bus, is completely without jurisdiction being against the pro visions of U. P. Motor Gari (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam. (ix) On these facts this petition is filed seeking the aforesaid relief. This petition was listed on 4-1-1996 and this Court hearing learned counsel for the parties directed that subject to petitioner's depositing entire dues towards the bank loan (Bank of Baroda) within 15 days, recovery pro ceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed and the petition was ordered to be listed on 22-1-1996. But on 10-1-1996 the petitioner moved an application praying for a direction to respondent No. 2 to restore posses sion of the bus in question to the petitioner after accepting the balance amount payable to the Bank of Baroda. In this application, it is submit ted that the order of this Court dated 4-1-1996 was orally communicated to respondent No. 2 on 5-1-1996 at 10 a. m. , whereupon the respondent No. 2 told the petitioner that though auction is fixed for 5-1-1996 but ho along-with his staff would be busy in attending VIP's (His Excellency Governor of U. P. and Railway Minister), therefore, the action will not take place. The petitioner, however, intimated the respondent No. 2 that certified copy of the order dated 4-1-1996 will be made available to him as soon as she receives it from Allahabad. This written application was submitted to respondent No. 2 vide Annexure 1 filed alongwith the application presented before this Court. It is also stated in this application that on the next day i. e. 6- 1-1996 the petitioner when again contacted respondent No. 2 and pro duced certified copy of the order of the Court dated 4-1-1996 and tried to deposit the balance amount as directed by this Court, the respondent No. 2 refused to accept the same saying that action had already been taken place on 5-1- 1996 and therefore he will accept nothing in this regard. It is sub mitted that the petitioner thereafter approached the Collector, Bareilly and moved an application requesting him that auction of the petitioner's bus was illegal as the same was done in utter violation of the order dated 4-1-1996 passed by this Court. The application made to the Collector is also annexed to the application as Annoxure-2. It is also stated that thereafter the Petitioner met the Regional Transport Officer, Bareilly on 8-1-1996 and apprised him with the order dated 4-1-1996 passed by this Court who assured her that the bus shall not be transferred on the name of any other person. It is submitted that market value of the bus is more than Rs. 2. 50,000 but the respondent No. 2 has auctioned it for a meager amount Rs. 90,000 only in favour of her father-in-law Ahibaran Singh son of Umrao Singh, resident of village Richa, district Bareilly.
(3.) ON 12-1-1996 Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, took notice on behalf of the respondents and undertook to file counter-affidavit within a week. The petition was there fore, directed to be listed on 19-1-1996. On 19-1-1996 no counter-affidavit was filed. However, Sri K. R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in pursuance of the Court's order dated 4-1-1996 the petitioner offered to deposit the entire amount but the respondent No. 2 for the reasons best known to him dec lined to accept the same and while proceeding with the auction, the bus was sold for a meager amount of Rs. 90,000 in favour of the petitioner's father-in-law. Therefore, on 19-1-1996 this Court again directed that subject to petitioner's depositing the entire amount, as directed on 4-1-1996, the amount so offered by the petitioner shall be accepted and the bus in ques tion shall be restored to the petitioner forthwith. It was also directed that respondent-No. 2 Surendra Vikram, Up Ziladhikari, Faridpur, should appear in person on 5-2-1996,and furnish his explanation, and the case was fixed for 5-2-1996.;