G.R. Kadam & Sons vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 850 Bom

JUDGMENT

J.G. Chitre, J.

1. Heard.

2. The Petitioner is praying this Court for issuing the Writ of Certiorari as well as the Writ of Mandamus for relieving him of the pecuniary liability of paying the amount of Rs. 2,53,492 towards the water meter charges in respect of Dhobi Ghat for washing the clothes of J.J. Hospital, Municipal Group of Hospitals, in view of the tender floated by the Dean of the J.J. Hospital, Municipal Group of Hospitals. The terms of the tender are indicated by Annexure Exhibit A. By condition No. 15, the person bidding for tender was to be given the place known as Dhobi Ghat in the premises of the J.J. Hospital. Municipal Group of Hospitals for washing the Hospital linen and if any damage is caused to the said Dhobi Ghat, he was to compensate towards the said damage caused. As per condition No. 21, an amount of Rs. 2.000/- was to be deducted per month as approximate water charges and the said amount was to be adjusted after receipt of final bill from the proper authority. The tender bid made by the Petitioners was accepted and in view of that, the agreement which has been depicted by Annexure Exhibit-B came in existence. Term No. 1 (1) and (2) shows the amount which Petitioner was to receive for washing the operation theatre linen or other linen for J. J. Hospital, Municipal Group of Hospitals. By term No. 16 of the said Agreement, the Dhobi Ghat contractor was under obligation to pay the water charges for the water used from the Dhobi Ghat in the premises of J. J. Group of Hospitals, Bombay.

3. Vide letter dated 8th February, 1991, as indicated by Annexure Exhibit F-1, the Superintendent of J. J. Group of Hospitals, Bombay wrote a letter to the Petitioners clarifying the situation of informing him that after deducting the amount which he had paid towards the bill which was sent to him by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for period between April, 1985 to March, 1989 which was to the tune of Rs. 3,55,492/-, the Petitioners were under the obligation of paying Rs. 2,53,492/- to the Superintendent of the J. J. Group of Hospitals for making the payment towards the demand made by Municipal Corporation in respect of the water supplied to the said Dhobi Ghat for use.

4. Another letter was written to the Petitioners dated 21st March, 1992. Again the said demand was reiterated. The Petitioners replied to the said demand notice by their letter dated 23rd March, 1991.

5. A letter written by Superintendent of J.J. Group of Hospitals to the Petitioners dated 25th April, 1991 shows that the said letter written by the Petitioners dated 23rd March, 1991 was considered by the said Superintendent and after applying his mind, the dues recoverable from the Petitioners were determined to be Rs. 2,53,492/-. After that, it seems that the Superintendent of J.J. Group of Hospitals once again by his letter dated 8th August, 1991 informed the Petitioner that he is liable to pay the difference of water bill to the tune of Rs. 2,53,492/-.

6. Mr. Surana had submitted that there was no adjudication and determination of the amount which is recoverable from the Petitioners and without following the due process of law, the Respondents are recovering the said amount from the petitioners by accepting the RRC which has been la-sued by the Collector, Recovery, Mumbai. Mr. Surana had also argued that the Petitioners were not given the opportunity of making the appropriate submissions in their defence. Mr. Surana had also argued that on account of not following the due process of law, the said RRC has become bad in law.

7. Mr. Surana, therefore, had prayed for quashing the said RRC on these grounds as indicated in the above paragraphs. In addition to that, Mr. Surana had submitted that if at all the Superintendent of J.J. Group of Hospitals want to recover that amount from the Petitioners, it should file a Civil Suit against him.

8. Mr. D'Mello appearing for the Respondents has pointed out that the amount which is to be recovered from the Petitioners has been determined by following the due process of law. He submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court.

9. We uphold the submissions of Mr. D'Mello and come to the conclusion that the due recoverable from the Petitioners have been determined by the Superintendent of J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai. It is to be seen that the Dean had issued demand notice demanding the said amount from the Petitioners and vide that notice, he had informed the Petitioners that amount of Rs. 2,53,492/- was determined to have been recoverable from him. Not only that, he has considered the reply which has been sent by the Petitioners to the said demand notice, whereby, he had put up his say. The letter which has been written to the Petitioners by the Superintendent of J.J. Group of Hospitals dated 25th October, 1991 shows that by due application of his mind, and after considering his say, the said Superintendent had adjudicated the dues recoverable from him by determining it by following the due process of law. When the acts of such authorities, dependent on contract/s are challenged, the Courts need not look to auxiliary technicalities. Such authorities are not supposed to write the judgments which the Courts do write while deciding the suits, proceedings or the appeals. The Court has to see the spirit behind such orders and the adjudication done. Court has to see whether party at the receiving end has been offered the opportunity of hearing and in fact such party has been really so heard. Court also has to see that whether the dues are determined by appropriate application of the mind and by judging the merits and demerits of the applications and contentions.

10. In this case, we are totally satisfied that while adopting a due process of law, the dues are determined. Thereafter, the RRC has been issued against Petitioner. J.J. Group of Hospitals is the institute run by the Government for giving medical treatment to the citizens residing in the jurisdiction and limits of the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, Collector of Recovery was under obligation to issue said RRC for the purpose of recovering the said amount, for protecting larger interest of public.

11. The Petition, therefore, does not succeed. It fails, and thus it has been dismissed. Keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner happens to be a Dhobi, washing the linens of operation theatre and other wards of J.J. Group of Hospitals, this Court passes no order as to the costs.