M/S N Vimal Engineering Contract vs Municipal Council, Barmer
2022 Latest Caselaw 9725 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10390/2022

M/s N Vimal Engineering Contract, Opposite Janana Dodi, Raika Bagh, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus Municipal Council, Barmer, Through Its Commissioner.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. CS Kotwani

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

26/07/2022

The petitioner was issued work order on 17.09.2014.

Petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that

petitioner's contract was found satisfactory and the amount to be

paid by the respondent - Municipal Board admitted to be due, yet

the petitioner has not been paid the due amount. It is contended

that the respondents have paid no heed to petitioner's grievance

in spite of number of representations filed by petitioner.

Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the

Supreme Court in the case of M/s Surya Constructions Vs. The

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors : Civil Appeal No. 2610/2019,

decided on 08.03.2019 and submits that in light of observation

made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the respondent - Municipal

Board is under obligation to pay the due amount.

In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed

of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before

the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Barmer within a period of

(2 of 2) [CW-10390/2022]

two weeks from today along with photo-stat copy of judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Surya Constructions

(supra), other documentary evidence and a certified copy of the

order instant.

In case, a representation is so addressed, the respondent -

Municipal Board shall consider and do the needful and make the

requisite payment to the petitioner in accordance with law as early

as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks.

In case the Commissioner or competent authority of the

Municipal Council is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled

for the payment as claimed, he shall pass a speaking order under

intimation to the petitioner, against which petitioner's right to take

legal remedies shall remain reserved.

It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representation has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not

be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a

particular manner.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

305-payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)