Prikshat Singh Manhas vs State and Another

Sunil Hali, J.—Petitioner claimed to be an outstanding sports person and excelled well in various national and international events. The

petitioner was a member of Indian Roller Hockey Team which participated in 30th Roller Hockey World Cup at Andorra from 7th to 14th

October, 1992. Pursuant to selection of the petitioner for the said World Cup, he participated in the said event and incurred huge expenses during

the said/international event in which he along with other participants represented the country. It is the case of the petitioner that he has incurred

expenses of Rs. 98,570/- on this count. The expenditure includes actual air fare, to and fro from Spain and other expenses. These expenses were

incurred by the petitioner after having received specific assurance from respondent No. 2 that same will be meted out by the respondents. On this

assurance, the petitioner proceeded to participate in the World Cup in Spain and incurred the expenses of Rs. 98,570/-. On his return, he

submitted the details of expenditure to the respondents and sought its release in his favour. The detail of the expenditure is given in Annexure-A

attached to the writ petition. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 98,570/- which includes to and fro fare from Spain, boarding and lodging and air fare

from Barcelona to Andorra (Spain) and back. Said bills were submitted by the petitioner in the year 1994.

The respondents have filed objections wherein they have refused to release the payment despite the bills having been submitted by the petitioner.

The stand taken by the respondents is that General Secretary, Amatear Roller Skating Association, J&K had requested for financial assistance of

Rs. 53,000/-for meeting the expenses of the Skaters for participation in the World B. Roller Hockey Championship. The Association had

furnished the bills of Rs. 31,947/-as expenditure incurred by the petitioner. It is further stated by the respondents that the petitioner on its own

submitted the detail of expenditure of Rs. 98,570/-which is contrary to the one submitted by the Association. It is also averred that the petitioner

has not submitted the proof of actual expenses incurred by him.. Faced with this situation, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking

mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse the amount to the petitioner on account of expenditure incurred by him.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Undoubtedly, respondent No. 2 is a State within the meaning of Article 12

of the Constitution. An appropriate writ, order or direction can be issued against it. Being the State within the meaning of Article 12, certain

obligations are casts upon it, which it is required to perform. Any violation of fundamental rights can be enforced against respondent No. 2. The

petitioner grievance is that on the assurance given by respondent No. 2, he participated in the World Cup Skating Roller in Spain and had incurred

an amount of Rs. 98,570/-. He further states that the persons whose detail is given in para 9 (a) of the writ petition have been reimbursed by the

respondents for the amount which they have spent on account of their participation in the events conducted outside India whereas the petitioner has

been singled out and discriminated.

The respondents in their reply rebutted the claim of the petitioner. Going to the merits of the case, I find that expenditure incurred by the

petitioner is neither exorbitant nor unreasonable. The amount of Rs. 31,947/- sanctioned by the respondents is neither here nor there. The

respondents have withheld the amount claimed by the petitioner without any reasonable cause merely stating that the rules do not permit. It cannot

be countenance under law. Even if there is limitation prescribed in law, the same can be relaxed in the situation like the one where the petitioner has

actually incurred the expenses. Admittedly, respondents have given this benefit to other persons detail of which is given in para 9(a) of the writ

petition and respondents have not denied the same in their reply. This action of the respondents tantamounts violation of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India and respondents cannot be permitted to treat the petitioner differently.

In view of the above, I therefore, direct that the respondents shall reimburse the amount of Rs. 98,570/- claimed by the petitioner. However, in

case there is any doubt in respect of the bills submitted by the petitioner, they shall be at liberty to seek such clarification from the petitioner in this

regard. This process must be completed by the respondents within one month from the date copy of this order is received by them. In case,

respondents fail to reimburse the payment to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, in that eventuality the petitioner shall be entitled to receive

the aforesaid amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date his claim has become due.

Disposed of along with connected CMP(s).