Punjab-Haryana High Court
Food Grain Dealer'S Welfare ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 14 August, 2012
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP no. 11358 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP no. 11358 of 2010(O&M)
Date of Decision : 14.08.2012
Food Grain Dealer's Welfare Association
......Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.2 and 7 Mr. J.K.Singla, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Mr. Bhoop Singh, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 5 MAHESH GROVER, J This petition has been filed by the Foodgrain dealer's welfare association through its authorized representative Sh.Brijender Kumar.
The prayer as set out in the petition is for appropriate directions to the respondent to refund a sum of ` 10,71,900/- which has been deducted from the bills submitted by the members of the petitioner association regarding the payment on account of sale of Bajra as there was no justifiable reason to deduct the said amount. The petitioner claims to be commission agents and dealers in foodgrains and state that they have merely facilitated the purchase and sale of foodgrains which is weighed in their premises and packed into bags and despatched to various places or warehouses. Since it is weighed and then taken to warehouses, any loss CWP no. 11358 of 2010 2 occurring thereafter is not their responsibility. It is their case that the foodgrains, in particular, Bajra which was purchased by the respondents was left lying in the open for approximately 2 months and, therefore, the loss on account of storage or rather lack of storage could possibly have not been placed on them and they cannot be held liable for the same.
The respondents deny this and also their liability to make good the claim of the petitioner. Apart from the case on merits, a preliminary objection has been raised that petitioner himself filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction with similar prayer which suit was dismissed on 30.1.2009 and no appeal was preferred by the petitioners thereafter against that order of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Narwana. It has also been stated before this Court that this fact was clearly concealed by the petitioner as it has not been pleaded so in the averments made in the writ petition.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is totally mis-conceived. The petitioners claim cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of power of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the simple reason that such a claim of loss whether on account of the fault of the petitioner or the respondent has to be established in the Court of competent jurisdiction by adducing proper evidence in support of the claim and counter claim made by the petitioner and the respondent. Such highly disputed questions of facts emanating from contract or business transactions cannot be adjudicated upon in the exercise of the original jurisdiction by the Court. That apart Mr. Brijender Kumar who is prosecuting the present petition had already filed a civil suit which stands dismissed and abhorrently this fact CWP no. 11358 of 2010 3 has not been disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition and when the prayer in the suit and the present petition is to be seen then it is virtually the same. On this count alone, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as no equitable jurisdiction of the Court can be answered in favour of a person who conceals material facts from the Court. Writ petition is dismissed for the reasons stated above.
August 14, 2012 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge