Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arka Enterprises vs Asansol Municipal Corporation & Others on 11 September, 2018
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
11.09.18
Item No.12
Court No.15
rpan
W.P. No. 14162 (W) of 2018
Arka Enterprises
- Versus -
Asansol Municipal Corporation & Others
Mr. Pallav Banerjee,
Mr. Ratul Das
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya,
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh
... for the respondents.
Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner prays for leave to implead the Commissioner, Asansol Municipal Corporation as a party respondent to the present writ petition.
Such prayer is considered and allowed. The learned advocate-on-record of the petitioner is granted leave to effect necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition.
As Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate can also appear on behalf of the added respondent no.3, service of a copy of the writ petition upon the added respondent no.3 is dispensed with.
Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was carrying on business as a Government Civil Contractor and General Order Supplier and he was issued several work orders by the then Kulti Municipality. By way of a notification dated 3rd June, 2015 published in the Kolkata Gazette the municipal areas of Kulti, Raniganj and Jamuria were included within the jurisdiction of Asansol Municipal Corporation. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner made several representations to the 2 respondent no.2 for payment of the amount due pertaining to the work orders issued by the Kulti Municipality. The last of such representation was submitted on 15th March, 2018 but the same was not taken into consideration by the authorities of Asansol Municipal Corporation and the admitted dues have been withheld by the authorities.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the respondents disputes such contention of the petitioner and submits that the municipal authorities cannot conduct a roving enquiry pertaining to the dues of the years starting from 2001, as stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition and that such claim is barred by limitation. Furthermore, the petitioner's claim involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Records reveal that till the year 2014 several representations were submitted by the petitioner claiming the dues from the Kulti Municipality. After issuance of the notification dated 3rd June, 2015, the petitioner also made representation to the respondent no.2 but the same has not been responded to.
Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon considering the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the issue needs to be relegated to the respondent no.3 for consideration.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation along with relevant documents to the added respondent no.3 within a period of three weeks from date claiming the dues pertaining to the work order nos. Engg./ WO/ 74/ KM, and Engg./ WO/ 73/ KM both dated 19th February, 2014.
In the event such representation is submitted by the petitioner, the added respondent no.3 shall consider the same, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the 3 petitioner or his representative and take a decision, in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner.
The above exercise shall be completed by the said added respondent no.3 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner's representation.
It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner's claim and all points are kept open to be considered by the respondent no. 3.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)