AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein direction has been sought for to reject the investigation report dated 09.06.2014 prepared by the respondent Bank and direct for payment in lieu of the delivery of pump-sets to the beneficiaries under Swarnjayanti Gramin Swarojgar Yojna Scheme and letter dated 24.06.2014 whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner has been rejected regarding payment against delivery of 156 pump sets by the petitioner.
It is the case of the petitioner that 156 pump sets have been delivered under the aforesaid scheme to the beneficiaries but even after its acceptance the amount has not been paid which led the petitioner to approach this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. (C) No.391 of 2010, this Court has disposed of the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 18.02.2014 directing the respondents to clearly inform the petitioner regarding the defect in particular pump set or non-delivery against any order within four weeks. The respondents, as assured, shall clear the bill of the pump set, already supplied without any defect within the said period.
The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the said order, the investigation has been conducted and a report has been submitted but behind the back of the petitioner holding therein that the pump sets have not been supplied and not having in workable condition and therefore, the amount cannot be disbursed.
The petitioner has approached to the contempt Court being Cont. Case (Civil) no.548 of 2014, however, the aforesaid contempt application has been disposed of looking to the aforesaid investigation report and thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief.
The petitioner's sole contention is that the investigation has been conducted but it is behind the back, therefore, amount which the petitioner is entitled to get which has been withheld without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, hence the action of the authorities is not proper.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has submitted that the matter raised in the writ petition is seriously being disputed by the bank as would be evident from the investigation report and taking into consideration the said report, the contempt Court has also dropped the proceeding by looking to the said investigation report wherein it has been reported that the pump sets were not in workable condition at all, therefore, in such a disputed question of fact, the writ petition may not be entertained.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the factual aspect involved in this case, it is evident that the petitioner has supplied 156 pump sets under the scheme known as Swarnjayanti Gramin Swarojgar Yojna Scheme but even after submission of the bills to that effect, the same has not been disbursed in favour of the petitioner which led the petitioner to file a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.391 of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 18.02.2014 by which the respondents have been directed to look into the position of the pump sets as to whether it is workable or not and pay the amount if the authority will come to the conclusion that the pump sets are without any defect.
In terms of the aforesaid order the Bank has directed for conducting an investigation and a thorough investigation was conducted and it was observed therein as:-
Sl No.
Details of pumpsets received
Number
1
Received pumpsets with accessories
5
2
Received pumpsets without accessories
45
3
Persons not traceable during investigation period
53
4
Persons available and received the pumpset but refused to provide written acceptance
1
5
Non-receipt of pumpsets
5
Total
109
Even the same has not been disbursed in favour of the petitioner, he has filed a contempt application being Cont. Case (Civil) No.548 of 2014 but this Court after looking to the investigation report containing therein that remark about the quality of the pump sets supplied by the petitioner has refused to proceed with the contempt application holding therein that there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, accordingly, the contempt application has been dismissed.
The question herein raised by the petitioner that in course of investigation, he ought to have been provided with an opportunity but without doing so they have reached to the unilateral conclusion that the pump sets are not in workable condition.
The question herein is that the said ground was available to the petitioner in the first round of litigation but this Court while disposing of the writ petition clearly directed the respondent to look into the position of the pump sets whether it is workable or not and disburse the amount so far as it relates to the pump sets having no defect, in pursuance thereto, investigation was conducted and on the basis of an enquiry, statement taken from the beneficiaries, the bank has come to the conclusion that the pump sets were not in workable condition and also somewhere not delivered, therefore, the money has not been paid.
The question of providing an opportunity in the second round when there is no direction by this Court in first round is having no force as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is for the reason that the aforesaid pump sets have been delivered by the petitioner under the scheme in favour of the beneficiaries and they have specifically come out with a stand that the pump sets are not in workable condition as also not supplied and if any direction would be passed in the second round of litigation i.e., instant writ petition, it will amount to reviewing the earlier order passed by this Court to the effect that in the said order there was no direction upon the bank to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, moreover, the same has been recorded by the contempt Court also and on the basis of the investigation report wherein investigation report of the bank has been accepted, thereafter, the conclusion has been arrived at that the pump sets which were said to have been supplied by the petitioner are not in workable condition and some of the pump sets have not been supplied, the contempt application has been dismissed.
This Court is of the view that the writ Court being a summary proceeding is not to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction where factual aspect is in dispute rather to be adjudicated by leading evidence, therefore, refrains itself from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, accordinlgy, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach before the competent Court of jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance, if he so wishes.