Tundaram Meena S/O Shri Moolchand @ ... vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 6234 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Tundaram Meena S/O Shri Moolchand @ ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 October, 2024

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Ashutosh Kumar

  [2024:RJ-JP:44705-DB]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

              D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 957/2021

                                             In

                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4879/2021

   Tundaram Meena S/o Shri Moolchand @ Mudya, Aged About 60
   Years, R/o Village Bamanwas, Pati Khurd, Tehsil Bamanwas,
   District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                         Versus
   1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Health
           Engineering Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
   2.      Superintendent           Engineer,       Public      Health    Engineering
           Department, Circle Jaipur.
   3.      Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department,
           Circle Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur.
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta, Advocate Mr. Harsh Saraswat, Advocate

For Respondents : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Judgment

24/10/2024

1. Heard.

2. Though learned counsel for the appellant seeks to challenge

the order passed by the learned Single Judge on various grounds

raising mainly the issue that the appellant was not liable to pay

the amount under demand, we are not inclined to interfere with

the order passed by the learned Single Judge as the learned

[2024:RJ-JP:44705-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-957/2021]

Single Judge has exercised its discretion mainly on the ground

that the appellant approached the court with delay.

Even otherwise, we find that the dispute is purely of

contractual nature and the agreement also provides for settlement

of dispute. We are of the view that if the appellant has any

grievance, he ought to have approached the Standing Committee.

Therefore, on the ground of delay and existence of remedy under

the terms of the contract, there is no reason for the writ court to

enter into the contractual dispute between the parties.

3. In the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the

appellant is allowed to raise the dispute under Clause 21 of the

contract before the appropriate Committee. We give the appellant

liberty to approach the concerned Committee by submitting the

dispute/representation within a period of 45 days from today. If

that is done, the same shall be decided by the Committee.

4. It goes without saying that in case the appellant is not

satisfied with the decision, he will be at liberty to take recourse to

such remedy as may be available to him under the law.

5. Appeal is disposed off accordingly.

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ

Manoj Narwani-RAHUL/4

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)