M/S Irshad Ahmad And Company vs. Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court found that the petitioner had been issued notices to deposit the outstanding amounts. Given this, the Court deemed it inappropriate to interfere with the impugned notice at the present stage. The Court permitted the petitioner to approach the third respondent (presumably the concerned authority of the Mandi Parishad) within two weeks with a certified copy of the order. The respondent was directed to inform the petitioner of the exact outstanding amount within one week thereafter. The petitioner undertook to deposit this amount, inclusive of interest and GST, within four weeks. Upon successful deposit, the authority was directed to examine the petitioner's claim for the execution of the lease deed in accordance with the law within a further period of six weeks. The writ petition was disposed of in light of these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Irshad Ahmad And Company, is aggrieved by a notice dated 10.11.2022, issued by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mau. The notice demanded the deposit of balance rent with interest and Goods and Services Tax (GST), failing which further action would be taken. The petitioner was allotted a shop in 2010, requiring a six-month advance rent deposit for possession. The petitioner claims to have made this deposit and taken possession, but the agreement has not been executed in their favour. The Mandi Parishad contends that the petitioner has not deposited rent from 2010 to 2022, leading to the issuance of the notices. The petitioner's counsel stated that the entire balance amount, including interest and GST, would be deposited forthwith.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 10.11.2022, issued by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mau, demanding balance rent, interest, and GST, is valid and warrants interference by this Court at this stage, considering the petitioner's claim of having deposited advance rent and the pending execution of the lease deed. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had fulfilled their initial obligations by depositing the advance rent and taking possession, and the non-execution of the lease deed was an issue to be resolved. They indicated a willingness to deposit the outstanding amounts. Respondent's Contention: The Mandi Parishad asserted that the petitioner had not deposited rent from 2010 to 2022, justifying the issuance of the notices for recovery of arrears.