Shri. Shohidur Rohman vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 640 Meg

Serial No. 26
Regular List
                             HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                                   AT SHILLONG

   WP(C) No. 493 of 2019                              Date of Decision: 01.11.2022


   Shri. Shohidur Rohman                 Vs.        State of Meghalaya & Ors.

   Coram:
                          Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge


   Appearance:

   For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) :           Ms. P. Agarwal, Adv.

   For the Respondent(s)             :         Mr. R. Gurung, GA(For R 1-6)

Mr. S. Deb, Adv. vice Mr. S. Dey, Adv. (For R 7-9).

   i)         Whether approved for reporting in                 Yes/No
              Law journals etc.:

   ii)        Whether approved for publication
              in press:                                         Yes/No

                         JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The writ petitioner who is stated to be Ex-Secretary of the

Village Employment Council of Borshibanda Village Council is before

this Court, by way of the instant writ petition, with a prayer that the

respondents be directed to release an amount of Rs.7,93,000/- (Rupees

Seven Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand only) in his favour, which he claims

he is entitled to, for the materials used in a contract awarded to the VEC

for construction of Jeepable road from PWD road to Berubari with

retaining wall at Borshibanda.

2. It is noted that, this is the third round that, the writ petitioner is

before this Court, wherein, in the earlier occasions, a writ petition had

been filed followed by a Contempt Application.

3. Ms. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has

strenuously argued that, the amount which is due to the petitioner has been

misappropriated by the respondents No. 8 and 9, who is stated to have

released the same, to one Shri. Nurul Islam Sheikh, who is stated to be the

vendor of the materials. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of

this Court to Annexures - 11 and 12 of the writ petition, whereby the

official respondents have directed the respondents No. 8 and 9 to refund

the money, so that the same may be made over to the suppliers of the

materials. She submits that the same has never been complied, as such,

the respondents are liable to be directed to refund the amount immediately.

4. Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents No. 7,

8 and 9 has submitted that the work was allotted to the erstwhile VEC,

headed by the writ petitioner and on the execution thereof, the present

VEC headed by the respondents No. 8 and 9, on receipt of the money have

released the same, to the concerned contractor/vendor, Shri. Nurul Islam

Sheikh. He further submits that the said Nurul Islam Sheikh has not been

impleaded in the said writ petition and the fact that, the payment has been

duly received is evidenced by the Deed of Declaration executed by the

said, Nurul Islam Sheikh, which is annexed at Annexure - 1 to the

affidavit. As such, he submits that the petitioner being unable to

substantiate his claims, as to his entitlements, is not entitled to any reliefs

as claimed.

5. Mr. R. Gurung, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1-6

submits that notwithstanding the status for refund, as the amount has been

disbursed to the concerned VEC, the disputes would lie at that level and

whatever reliefs the petitioner claims for, is not borne out by the materials

and further he submits that, the instant matter is the third round of

litigation.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. The only issue in

the present petition is with regard to the entitlements of the writ petitioner

to the amount as claimed, wherein it has been submitted that, it was for

the materials purchased and supplied by him.

7. In consideration of the facts as they stand today, it is clear that

the work was allotted to the VEC and for the materials, it has been shown,

that the amount has been released to a certain, Shri Nurul Islam Sheikh,

who however, has not been impleaded by the writ petitioner. As such,

whatever remains is in the nature of a private dispute, and further as

disputed question of facts have been raised, it is not possible to determine

the dispute, by way of this writ petition.

8. As such, in this view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ

petition and the same is dismissed and stands disposed of.

Judge

Meghalaya 01.11.2022 "D.Thabah-PS"