Allowed

Shanti Devi v. Rural Works Department

Jharkhand HC20 Jan 2015WPC/1670/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed the Executive Engineer to issue a revalidated cheque for Rs. 51,29,019/- to the petitioner, the successor of a deceased contractor, within four weeks, dismissing the respondents'

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 4 to issue revalidated cheque for Rs. 51,29,019/- within four weeks.

Shanti Devi Vs Rural Works Department — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 1670 of 2014

¶3

Shanti Devi, W/o- late Rajkumar Mahto, Kuroom, Palu, Ormanjhi, Ranchi

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand

¶7

Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

Chief Engineer, JSRRDA, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ramgarh ... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Sr. S.C. I. --------------

¶12

03/20.01.2015 Seeking a direction upon the respondents for issuing a revalidated cheque in place of cheque no. 245697 dated 29.07.2009 for Rs. 51,29,019/-, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶13

Briefly stated, the husband of the petitioner namely, late Rajkumar Mahto was awarded a contract however, before the work was completed on 07.07.2009, the petitioner's husband died in a road accident. The respondents therefore, took measurement of the work and a cheque for an amount of Rs. 51,29,019/- drawn on State Bank of India was prepared in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner presented the said cheque for enchashment however, the petitioner was informed that due to lack of allotment, the amount could not be paid to the petitioner. However, the respondent no. 4- Executive Engineer informed the petitioner that a fresh cheque would be issued to the petitioner after the petitioner returns the old

¶14

¶15

cheque. The petitioner accordingly, returned the said cheque to the respondents on 08.01.2010 however, the same has not been revalidated. The petitioner produced Succession Certificate dated 26.07.2010 issued by the competent court and made representation to the respondents on 16.08.2010 however, even after lapse of more that four years, the respondents have not issued revalidated cheque.

¶16

A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the cheque dated 29.07.2009 was not honoured by the Bank because bank authorisation was issued in favour of late Rajkumar Mahto and the payment could have been released in his favour only. It is further stated that in view of the objection raised by the Law Department, the petitioner is required to submit Succession Certificate. The Succession Certificate submitted by the petitioner does not contain the reference to the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana under which the work was executed by her late husband namely, Rajkumar Mahto.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents have neither denied the liability to pay an amount of Rs. 51,29,019/- nor they have denied that the petitioner is not the wife of Late Rajkumar Mahto. The plea taken by the respondent no. 4 is apparently frivolous.

¶19

Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit.

¶20

¶21

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶22

I find that the Succession Certificate produced by the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondents. I am of the opinion that it is sufficient in law that the present petitioner has been recognised by the competent court as successor of the deceased. The stand taken by the respondent no. 4 is apparently frivolous. The cheque was initially issued in the name of the petitioner and none of the legal heirs of the deceased has raised any objection. It is also not brought on record that the respondents ever informed the petitioner that she is required to produce Succession Certificate which should have reference of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid facts, I hereby direct the respondent no. 4 to issue revalidated cheque for an amount of Rs. 51,29,019/- in the name of the petitioner within a period of four weeks after a copy of the order is produced before him and the respondent no. 3 is directed to ensure that the said revalidated cheque is issued and handed over to the petitioner within the said period of four weeks.

¶24

The writ petition stands allowed, in the above terms.

¶25

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶26

Tanuj/-

Shanti Devi v. Rural Works Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Devi v. Rural Works Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Shukla Vs Collectariate

Sayed MD Nasim Vs Haji Syed Md Shamim And Others

Mukti Mahato Vs Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Collectariate

MD Sane Raza Ansari Vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Smt Gangotri Devi Vs Food Supply