Allowed

R.Ramar, v. the Divisional Railway Manager

Madras HC2 Feb 2018WP(MD)/1845/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the Southern Railway to pay a contract bill amount of Rs. 11,89,472/- regarding drainage works. The High Court held the amount was payable and directed the respondents to disburse it within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to disburse the amount of Rs. 11,89,472/- to the petitioner within eight weeks.

R.Ramar, Vs the Divisional Railway Manager — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1845 of 2018

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)No.1975 of 2018

¶9

R.Ramar ... Petitioner

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Madurai.

¶12

The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway,

¶13

Madurai.

¶14

The Senior Divisional Engineer (South), Southern Railway, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 29.03.2016 and 11.11.2016 and disburse the bill amount of Rs.11,89,472 (Eleven Lakhs eighty nine thousand, four hundred and seventy two only) with interest from the date of sanction, within a fixed time frame.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan For Respondents : Mr.S.Manohar

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Writ Petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider the representations dated 29.03.2016 and 11.11.2016 and disburse the bill amount of Rs.11,89,472/(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Two Only) with interest from the date of sanction.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.According to the petitioner, the respondents awarded some contract works to the petitioner to improve the drainage in Madurai to Virudhunagar Section (Thirumangalam and Kalligudi) and pursuant

¶20

¶21

to the said contract, he has completed the work and the respondents also satisfied and a sum of Rs.11,89,472/- is yet to be paid to the petitioner for the above said work. Despite several representations, the said amount has not been paid. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶22

3.Earlier, when the matter was taken up for admission, notice was ordered to the respondents. Today, Mr.S.Manohar, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that already the third respondent sent a financial proposal to the Senior Divisional Manager, Chennai and they are waiting for the approval from the Senior Divisional Manager, Chennai. As soon as they will get the approval, they will pay the amount to the petitioner and pray six weeks time.

¶23

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to disburse the amount to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar (W)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Madurai.

¶30

The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Madurai.

¶31

The Senior Divisional Engineer (South), Southern Railway, Madurai.

¶32

- 1 CC TO Mr.K.P.S.PALANIVEL RAJAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 46051

¶33

- 1 CC TO Mr.S.MANOHAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 46278

¶34

MYR

¶35

TE/SV-MMS/SAR-3 : 19/02/2018 : 2P/6C

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

W.P(MD)No.1845 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1975 of 2018 02.02.2018

R.Ramar, v. the Divisional Railway Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ramar, v. the Divisional Railway Manager

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

G. Ramasubramanian, Vs the State Public Information

Thevarkula (T.K.) Agamudaiyar Vs the Director of Elementary

Peer Mohammed Oliyulla Dargah Vs the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

A. Syed Abdul Rahim Vs Sandeep Nandhuri

K.Ayyapan, S/O.a.Kandasamy Vs the Sub Registrar

Kamaraj, Vs the Government of Tamilnadu