Rupchanad Harichand Khandelwal vs Commissioner, Municipal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1470 Bom

                             1                       50-wp-315-2022-J.odt

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                  WRIT PETITION NO. 315 OF 2022

     Rupchanad Harichand Khandelwal,
     Aged - 58 years, Occu. - Agri. & :
     Business,                                       PETITIONER
     R/o Congress Nagar, Amravati,
     Tq. & Dist. Amravati
                                 VS.
     Commissioner,
     Municipal Corporation of City of :             RESPONDENT
     Amravati

Mr. D.S. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the respondent

                             CORAM :   SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                       ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATE : 11th February 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the parties.

3. It is not in dispute that the final bill having an amount of

Rs.53,34,789/- is pending for due consideration of the respondent

i.e. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of City of Amravati.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that this amount is due and payable to the petitioner on 2 50-wp-315-2022-J.odt

account of the work of construction and strengthening of Amba Nala

and other places already completed by the petitioner. It is also

submitted by the petitioner that the final bill so placed before the

respondent is pending for quite a long time and it is necessary that it

is sanctioned by the respondent at the earliest so that the financial

burden that the petitioner has already incurred will be reduced

substantially. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that for want of payment of this bill, the petitioner is facing

severe financial crunch.

5. Considering the long pendency of the bill with the

respondent and also considering the fact that the bill has been raised

on account of works done in public interest, we are of the view that a

public authority like the respondent is under a public duty to

discharge its functions fairly, promptly and in public interest.

Therefore, we direct the respondent to consider the final bill

submitted by the petitioner for an amount of Rs.53,34,789/- for its

due sanction and payment and decide the same in accordance with

law as early as possible and preferably within three months from

today.

6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

                 JUDGE                                 JUDGE
                                                        Digitally signed by:MILIND
                                                        P DESHPANDE
                                                        Signing Date:11.02.2022
MP Deshpande                                            17:01