Bombay High Court
M/S D.P. Jain And Co. Infrastructure ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Ministry Of ... on 20 November, 2019
Author: Sunil B. Shukre
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, Rohit B. Deo
wp7063.18.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.7063/2018
PETITIONER : M/s. D.P. Jain & Co. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
U-6, Himalaya Accord Apartment, Opp. Law
College, Amravati Road, Nagpur - 440010
Through its Assistant General Manager,
(Technical), Shri Prakash S/o Laxman Zilpe.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra,
In the Ministry of Public Works,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32, Through
its Secretary.
2. State of Maharashtra
Irrigation Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
3. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Amravati Region, Amravati.
4. The Chief Engineer,
Water Resource Department
Sinchan Sewa Bhawan,
Shivaji Nagar, Amravati.
5. Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division, Khamgaon.
6. Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, Sinchan Sewa Bhawan,
Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001
Through its Executive Director.
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:40:12 :::
wp7063.18.odt
2
7. Superintending Engineer,
Buldhana Irrigation Project Circle,
Tata ground, Buldhana.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.S. Kukday, Counsel for petitioner
Shri N.S. Rao, AGP for respondent nos.1, 2, 3 & 5
Shri Vinay Dahat, Counsel for respondent nos.4, 6 & 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ROHIT B. DEO JJ.
DATE : 20/11/2019
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Although this petition claims relief in the nature of reimbursement of an amount of Rs.5,16,28,869.42 on account of unjustified increase of the royalty charges, we find that a representation of the petitioner dated 02/05/2018 made in this regard is still pending with the respondent no.1. Till the representation is decided, it would not be appropriate for this Court to make any comment regarding entitlement of the petitioner to such a relief and therefore, it would be in the fitness of things that the representation dated 02/05/2018 is directed to be decided by the respondent no.1.
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:40:12 :::
wp7063.18.odt 3
3. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 is directed to decide the representation, dated 02/05/2018, filed by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar, P.S.
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:40:12 :::