Deepak Balwantrao Bangde vs The Collector, The Secretary Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9871 Bom

2023:BHC-NAG:14084-DB
                                                   1                       WP-4371-2019.odt


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
                                      Writ Petition No.4371 of 2019
                 Deepak Balwantrao Bangde,
                 Aged about 65 years,
                 Occ.: Proprietor, Sunrise Akshay Urja,
                 R/o Gadikhana, Ganeshpeth,
                 Nagpur 440032.                                       ... Petitioner


                      Versus


                 1. The Collector,
                      The Secretary of District Planning and
                      Development Committee,
                      Collector Office, Nagpur.


                 2. Chief Officer,
                      Municipal Council, Ramtek,
                      Tq. Ramtek, Distt. Nagpur.


                 3. The President,
                      Municipal Council, Ramtek,
                      Tq. Ramtek, Distt. Nagpur.                      ... Respondents


                 Shri L.H. Kothari, Counsel for Petitioner.
                 Smt. S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.
                 Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

                CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 25th SEPTEMBER, 2023.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

counsel for the parties.

2 WP-4371-2019.odt

2. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the tender notice issued on

behalf of the respondent No.2 inviting bids for various works, the

petitioner carried out the works and thereafter he was issued the work

completion certificate. Despite this, it is the grievance of the petitioner

that he has not been paid his dues for having carried out such works.

Notice dated 18-12-2018 came to be issued by the petitioner to the

respondent Nos.2 and 3. On this ground, the petitioner seeks direction to

be issued to the said respondents to pay him his dues for the works he has

carried out.

3. Shri M.I. Dhatrak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3,

seeks time to file affidavit-in-reply. According to him, the entitlement of

the petitioner would have to be examined before any relief to be granted

to him.

4. It is seen that the petitioner has issued notice dated 18-12-2018 to

the respondent Nos.2 and 3 demanding his dues for the works he has

carried out. In the facts of the present case, the interest of justice would

be served by treating the notice dated 18-12-2018 as a representation

made to the respondent No.2 who shall consider the same in accordance

with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the

respondent No.2 finds that the works in question have been satisfactorily

completed, the request made by the petitioner to release his dues can be

considered in accordance with law. To enable consideration of the 3 WP-4371-2019.odt

petitioner's request, he shall appear before the respondent No.2 on

3-10-2023. The respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation

of the petitioner dated 18-12-2018 within a period of four weeks from that

date and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner. Needless to

state that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the outcome of the said

representation, he is free to take appropriate legal steps.

5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

LANJEWAR

Signed by: Prashant D. Lanjewar Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 26/09/2023 17:24:52