Dinesh Kumar Choubey vs Municipal Council, Bhind

Heard. Petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to the respondent, Municipal Council, Bhind to make payment to the petitioner for the work which he had completed in pursuance to the work order.

The petitioner had been awarded a work order for completion of certain construction work. As per the petitioner, he had completed the aforesaid work and submitted bills to the Municipal Council, Bhind, however, the Municipal Council has not made payment to the petitioner. The petitioner stated that he completed the work of Rs. 2,24,638/- and that amount has not been paid yet to him. The petitioner also filed a letter dated 31-12-2005 issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Bhind. It has been informed to the petitioner by the aforesaid letter that the amount could not be paid to him due to paucity of fund.

The respondents-Municipal Council in its return denied the fact that petitioner is entitled to receive the total amount as claimed by the petitioner. It has been submitted by the respondents that the petitioner submitted the bills of large amount and on scrutiny the same, couple of anomalies detected and brought to the notice of the petitioner, however, the petitioner did not cure the aforesaid anomalies. It has further been contended in the return that number of irregularities and illegalities have been committed in processing and presentation of the bills by the petitioner, hence it needs detailed investigation and scrutiny.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had completed certain construction work in pursuance to the work order issued by the Municipal Council, hence it is obligatory on the part of the Municipal Council to make payment in favour of the petitioner.

Contrary to this, learned Counsel for respondents, Municipal Council, has submitted that disputed questions of facts are involved in this petition, hence the petition is not maintainable. It has further been stated that the Municipal Council has not accepted the liability to make payment in favour of the petitioner, hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for respondents, relied on the judgments in the cases of Union of India (UOI) Vs. T.R. Varma, and National Highway Authority of India Vs. Ganga Enterprises and Another,

From the facts of the case, it is clear that there is a dispute in regard to liability to make payment of the bills of the petitioner by respondents towards the work completed by the petitioner in pursuance to the work order. As per the petitioner, he completed the work 8-9 years before and since then the matter is pending. The petitioner filed a letter issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Bhind dated 31-12-2005 informing the petitioner that the amount claimed by the petitioner could not be paid due to paucity of fund. However, from the facts of the case, it is clear that a dispute exists in regard to entitlement of petitioner to receive payment and the matter relates to the year 1997. In such circumstances, in, our opinion, in the present case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a direction could not be issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is free to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate forum. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of, Looking to the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.