Shahana Begum vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Held

The Court held that once the petitioner filed an objection specifically stating that she had not made any bid and alleging forgery, it was incumbent upon respondent no. 5 to decide this plea by a speaking order before issuing the recovery certificate. The Court reasoned that this was a fundamental aspect of procedural fairness. Accordingly, the Court directed respondent no. 5 to consider and pass a speaking order on the petitioner's objection dated March 27, 2021, within three weeks of receiving a copy of the order and the objection. The recovery certificate was to remain in abeyance for five weeks, pending the decision on the objection. The petitioner was directed to submit the necessary documents to respondent no. 5 within two weeks. The Court noted that if the petitioner failed to comply, the interim protection would lapse.

Facts

The petitioner, Shahana Begum, filed a writ petition challenging a recovery of Rs. 74,54,134.00, representing auction money plus GST, for a Theka (tender) related to Pasu Mandi, Kamela Road, Saharanpur for the year 2021-22. The petitioner contended that she never participated in any auction, submitted any bid, or furnished any surety, alleging that her signature was misused or forged to obtain the tender. She filed an objection on March 27, 2021, to a notice from respondent no. 5 dated March 18, 2021. Despite her objection, the respondents proceeded to issue a recovery certificate without deciding her plea.

Key Issues

1. Whether respondent no. 5 was obligated to decide the petitioner's objection, filed on March 27, 2021, by a speaking order before issuing a recovery certificate, particularly when the petitioner denied participation in the auction and alleged forgery? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since she raised a specific plea of non-participation and forgery in her objection, it was incumbent upon respondent no. 5 to address and decide this plea through a speaking order before proceeding with recovery. Respondent's Contention: Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 contended that the petitioner was taking a false stand and that the respondent-Authority possessed evidence to demonstrate that the Theka was indeed taken by the petitioner.