AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravindra Maithani, J
Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.1,14,400/- which has been
illegally seized by the respondents.
(ii) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant interest @ 9% per annum on the amount illegally
recovered from the petitioner.
(iii) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.â€
It is the case of the petitioner that under official directions he got a work executed through labourers, for which he incurred Rs.1,14,400/-/. The
amount was paid to the labourers. Subsequently the department cancelled all the orders of the work, which had already been executed and started
recovering the amount already paid to the labourers. Instant petition has been filed for the recovery of the amount deposited with the department as
well as related reliefs.
On behalf of the respondents, despite opportunity, counter affidavit has not been filed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a similar controversy has already been decided by this Court in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 1867 of 2016 on 17.04.2017, the judgment of which has been confirmed in Special Appeal No. 556 of 2017 and connected appeal by
this Court on 16.08.2018.
During the course of argument, on behalf of the petitioner, it is also argued that departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, in
which he has already been exonerated.
The Court requested the learned counsel for the respondents to inform the Court as to what is the stand of the department. After seeking
instructions, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the concerned officer has informed her that the amount claimed by the
petitioner shall be released in his favour.
The statement given by the learned counsel for the respondents is taken on record.
Perusal of the judgment dated 17.04.2017 passed in WPSS No. 1867 of 2016 (Annexure No. 11) reveals that, in fact, a similar controversy has
already been decided by the Court, and in that case, the amount deposited by the petitioner of the case was directed to be released in his favour along
with the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view that a similar controversy has already been decided by the
Court, this Court is of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed.
The writ petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to release Rs.1,14,400/- in favour of the petitioner along with the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.