WPMS/1031/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 1785 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
sl. No   Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     WPMS No.1031 of 2021
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Via video conferencing).

Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. T.S. Fartiyal, Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand.

The petitioner had earlier approached this writ court by way of filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No.1907 of 2020, whereby, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents for the release of the amount due to the petitioner, in view of the fact of the technical sanction, as already been given to the construction work, which was completed by the petitioner. Simultaneously, a prayer was also sought for that a direction may be given to the respondents to decide the representation.

As the consequence of the disposal of the writ petition by the judgment of 19.10.2020, the petitioner's representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 18.01.2021, which was passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Kumaun Mandal. After the decision of the representation with regards to the respective claim of the amount, as mentioned in the writ petition as well as in the impugned order of rejection, this Court is of the view that the nature of relief sought for with regards to the remittance of the amount would entail a civil consideration of his claim, and for which, he has got a remedy to approach an appropriate civil courts competent to decide the matter.

The petitioner expressed an apprehension that in an event, if he now approaches the civil court for raising of his claim against the rejection of his representation for the release of the amount, as was directed to be considered by the respondents, it may be barred by limitation and the civil proceedings may not be tenable.

Under law, and particularly, the procedural law as it is contained under Order 7 Rule 6 of the CPC, contemplates to deal with such type of contingencies, where a plaint is filed at the belated stage, beyond the prescribed limitation period.

If the petitioner institutes the suit for raising of a claim, which has been adjudicated by the decision on the representation on 18.01.2021, and proceeds in accordance with Order 7 Rule 6 of the CPC, the suit would be decided in accordance with law.

Subject to the above observations and with the liberty to avail an appropriate civil remedy, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 08.06.2021

NR/