Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anup Kumar Maity vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 August, 2010
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P.No. 10741 (W) of 2010
Anup Kumar Maity
v.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Jayanta Das, advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarak Nath Ghosh, advocate, for the
State.
Heard on: August 17, 2010.
Judgment on: August 17, 2010.
The Court: The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated May 17, 2010 is seeking a
mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and dispose of his representations
marked Annexures P5 and P6.
Annexures P5 and P6 are representations dated March 3, 2008 and March 29, 2010 respectively, and they are at pages 21 and 22. By making the representations the petitioner requested the Savapati and the Executive Officer of Kolaghat Panchayat Samity in Purba Medinipur to pay him for the works he had executed.
The petitioner's case is that accepting his tender, by an order dated September 28, 2007 (at p. 17) the Executive Officer of Kolaghat Panchayat Samity gave him supply order for "urgent flood protection work of Damage Rupnarayan River Embankment from Denan Irrigation Banglow to Kidner Garden School under Kolaghat Panchayat Samity, 2007-08."
His further case is that though he successfully executed the work, for undisclosed reasons the Panchayat Samity did not pay him in full. Relying on Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. All Bengal Rickshaw Union & Ors. , 2009(3) CHN 352, counsel has 2 argued that the respondents being statutory authorities were under an obligation to consider and dispose of the representations.
I am unable to agree with counsel. In my opinion, nothing in the Division Bench decision relied on by him applies to the present case. It was a case regarding grant of licence. Here the petitioner has approached the High Court under art. 226 with a pure money claim. According to him, amount to which he was entitled has not been paid by the respondents. He wants the respondents to disclose the reasons why payment has not been made.
In my opinion, the reasons were to be disclosed by the respondents in their written statement if the petitioner filed a suit before the Civil Court or approached the forum, if any, under the contract. Power under art. 226 is not to be exercised for compelling the respondents to disclose their defence before they are required in law to do that. In the transaction no public law element was involved. The contract was not a statutory one and hence the petitioner is not entitled to the public law remedy under art. 226.
For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.
sh (Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)