Dismissed

M/s Ashok Electricals @ Ashok Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC20 Jun 2019CWJC/2904/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to quash a rejection order regarding unpaid claims for election work. The High Court held that the veracity of bills requires evidence and a fair opportunity to both parties, making this Court an inappropriate forum under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed; petitioner directed to seek remedy in competent civil court.

M/s Ashok Electricals @ Ashok Kumar Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2904 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

M/s Ashok Electricals @ Ashok Kumar Nirmali, District Supaul through its Sole Proprietor Ashok Kumar, aged about 45 years (M), S/o Sri Subansh Narayan Sah, Resident of Village- Nirmali, P.S.- Nirmali, District- Supaul

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna

¶7

The District Magistrate-cum-District Electoral Officer, Supaul

¶8

The Senior Electoral Officer-cum-Additional Collector, Supaul

¶9

The Deputy Electoral Officer, Supaul

¶10

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nirmali, Supaul

¶11

The Block Development Officer, Raghopur, Supaul

¶12

The Block Development Officer, Saraigarh, Supaul

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

======================================================

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha (GA7)

¶17

======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶19

2 20-06-2019

¶20

No one appears for the petitioner to press this writ application. Learned Government Advocate No. 7 is, however, present.

¶21

This writ application is being disposed off on the basis of materials available on the record. It appears that the petitioner has moved this Court for quashing of the order as contained in Memo No. 487-2 dated 30.08.2018 issued by respondent no. 3 whereby the claim of the petitioner for certain payments for the work allegedly done by him during Assembly Election, 2015 has not been paid and claim of the petitioner has

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.2904 of 2019(2) dt.20-06-2019 2/5

¶23

been rejected by the impugned order.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected on the basis of the inquiry report as the relevant documents which the petitioner had produced during verification such as work order has not at all been considered.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel representing the State has drawn the attention of this Court towards the impugned order and submits that it is a reasoned order and has been passed after giving all consideration to the materials available on the record. It is submitted that there are various reasons for which claim of the petitioner was not found payable, one of the them is that the petitioner was claiming the payment of certain bills which have already been paid in past. It is submitted that on the face of the reasons provided in the impugned order, a Writ Court would not be the appropriate forum where the correctness of the bills submitted by the petitioner may be examined. Submission is that in case the petitioner feels aggrieved by the impugned order he may seek his remedy before the appropriate court in appropriate jurisdiction but not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.2904 of 2019(2) dt.20-06-2019 3/5

¶27

Having gone through the materials available on the record, this Court finds that the impugned order enlists a number of reasons for rejection of claim of the petitioner. According to the impugned order, earlier the bills of a sum of Rs. 3102194/- submitted by the petitioner was examined and the payable bill of Rs. 1498075/- has been paid by Cheque No. 039536 dated 29.11.2016. The petitioner had received the said cheque after making an endorsement that he had received the payment. The additional bills of Rs. 5817228/- submitted by the petitioner was examined by the senior officer at the level of Additional Collector who had submitted his report finding that the additional bills of the petitioner are not payable. Some of the reasons stated in the impugned order are reproduced hereunder:

¶28

^^1- es0 v”kksd bysDVªhdYl] fueZyh }kjk iwoZ esa fy;s x;s foi=ksa dk nksckjk Hkqxrku dk nkok fd;k tkukA

¶29

2- dk;kZns”k esa Li’V:i ls la[;kRed vkWdM+k

¶30

vafdr ugha jgukA

¶31

3- fcuk dk;kZns”k ds gh foi=ksa dk Hkqxrku gsrq nkok izLrqr djukA

¶32

4- ,dgh dk;ZLFky ¼ch0,l0,l0 dkWyst] lqikSy½ ij fu/kkZfjr frfFk fnukad 27-10-2015 ls 08-112015 rd dk;kZns”k ds vuq:i foi= dk Hkqxrku iwoZ esa gh fd;k tk pqdk gSA iqu% mlh dk;ZLFky gsrq fnukad 0111-2015 ls 08-11-2015 rd rFkk fnukad 07-11-2015 ls 08-11-2015 rd vyx&vyx foi= dk Hkqxrku gsrq nkok izLrqr djukA

¶33

5- fuokZph inkf/kdkjh] 41&fueZyh fo/kku lHkk&vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] fueZyh ds vkns”k Kkikad 2326&2@fnukad 07-10-2015 }kjk vuqeaMy dk;kZy;] fueZyh esa 8kv dk ,d tsujsVj lsV bZa/ku lfgr fnukad

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.2904 of 2019(2) dt.20-06-2019

¶35

4/5

¶36

08-10-2015 ls yxkus dk vkns”k fuxZr gSA tcfd ,tsUlh }kjk pkj dk;ZLFkyksa ij vLFkk;h fo|qrhdj.k ls lacaf/kr foi=ksa dk nkok fd;k tkukA

¶37

6- vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] lqikSy }kjk es0 v”kksd bysfDVªhdYl] fueZyh dks dksbZ dk;kZns”k fuxZr ugha fd;k x;k gSA tcfd muds dk;kZy; esa vLFkk;h fo| qfrdj.k ls lacaf/kr foi=ksa dk Hkqxrku gsrq fnukad 07-102015 ls fnukad 08-11-2015 rd nkok laca/kh foi= lefiZr fd;k tkuk A

¶38

7- iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh] lqikSy }kjk v)Z lSfud cyksa ds Bgjko LFky ij vLFkk;h fo|qrhdj.k lacaf/kr dksbZ dk;kZns”k fuxZr ugh fd;k x;k gSA tcfd ,tsUlh }kjk 15 dk;ZLFkyksa ij vLFkk;h fo|qrh dj.k ls lacaf/kr vyx&vyx foi= lefiZr fd;k tkuk A

¶39

8- iqfyl ykbu] lqikSy@d`f’k mRiknu cktkj lfefr] lqikSy gsrq dksbZ dk;kZns”k fuxZr ugha gSA tcfd ,dgh dk;ZLFky esa fnukad 10-10-2015 ls 06-112015 rd ,oa 27-10-2015 ls 06-11-2015 rd dk vyx&vyx foi= lefiZr dj Hkqxrku gsrq nkok fd;k tkukA

¶40

9- fuxZr dk;kZns”k] lefiZr dk;Z izek.k&i= ,oa foi= dk fojks/kk&Hkk’k jguk A**

¶41

In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Bills of the petitioner cannot be now examined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as any such attempt to decide the dispute on the basis of the affidavits of the parties would not be just and proper. The veracity of the bills may be examined only after giving opportunity to both the parties to produce their respective evidence which may be done only before a competent civil court.

¶42

While dismissing the writ application for the reasons

¶43

Patna High Court CWJC No.2904 of 2019(2) dt.20-06-2019 5/5

¶44

aforementioned, this Court leaves it open to the petitioner to seek his remedy before the appropriate court/forum as maybe advised.

¶45

This writ applications stands dismissed.

¶46

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶47

avin/-ved

¶48

M/s Ashok Electricals @ Ashok Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Ashok Electricals @ Ashok Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Islamuddin Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Wakil Harizan @ Wakil Kumar Harizan Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Ghuter Kumar @ Ghuter Kumar sah Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Bijay Kumar @ Vijay Mistri Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Jha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

siyaram singh and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.