C)g EN TP€E H§§§€ GQ££RT QF 4: 3§°§EA¥T§$§A% AT 5§LA§?L%R ix .gwgi? giggsmcnem cum. wag? PETE 2Q mi Mg. 635 @F 2&03 . TFnE €‘g-‘EA'FFER QF: gvgwgRA KuMAR. JAgswALs Aé gag 4g yeags, sJa Late M.P.JA!SWAL, V gala gAzJm PARA, AMgIKAPHR D!STR!QT SURGQJA “3%) PETEQNER 1. $TATE QF 6% ATTE$§A%%€ Thmugh Seas'gtayy Pashu Chihse Mamragagag Q=K=§hgwam $esmiariat: Raigaur (6.6} 2X $taa5 9f Madhyg Pradessh, Thronnh Secygtag'yi Pasahg Qhikista Mantraiaya Ba!!abh Bhawaa, ghogaE a’Mfg 1 4 ‘ 1 I; 3%?” I $ate Pasmsdhaa Evam Ewakka ‘Jikas wigam, Through: Manggiag Directeri Mew gamer Bhawani Katya $u!tanabad Reari, Bhaga! (MP: 59§$E$§e€ Executi‘Je Qigiser, Ragya Paghgdhan Eyam Kukku at Vikas Nigam §amnaka!a, Ambikagus‘ DE$§¥E§£ Surguga (CG} D € t . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. W. P.No.635l2003 Petitioner Devendra Kumar Jaiswal Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and Others (Writ Petition under Article 226l227of the Constitution of India) Present: - Shri Mukesh Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. .Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. y Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for respondents No.3 & 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24-02-2011) By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to make payment of balance and due amount of Rs.3,52,418/— along with interest towards supply‘of cattle made by the petitioner. :2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, a registered supplier of cattle, supplied large number of cattle to the beneficiaries under the orders and directions of respondent No.4. The bills were submitted for payment before the :respondent No.4. Having submitted bill worth Rs.3,52,418/—, though respondent iNo.4. was obliged to make payment against supply of cattle made by the petitioner, payments were not made, which led to filing of representation by the ix petitioner to respondent No.3. On the assurance held out to the petitioner, vide ‘letter dated 24-12-1993 (Annexure P—1), the petitioner deposited the draft worth ltks.1,18,660/— to respondent No.4. On the complaint made with regard to non ‘payment, respondent No.3 directed enquiry to be made by appointing committee vide its order dated 01-07—1994 and informing the petitioner that the claim of the ,J/%r\ l ,-‘ l M 2_’— I petitioner would be decided after receipt of report from the committee. Fuither case of the petitioner is that the committee submitted its report on 16—08-1994 (Annexure P-3) in which, it was clearly recorded that the bills due for payment to the petitioner were paid to other party by one Dr. Baghel. Even thereafter, the respondent did not clear the bills. The petitioner thereafter made complaint to the Collector, Surguja, who also got the matter enquired and in his report dated 15— 05—1995 (Annexure P-4), he also opined that the petitioner had supplied cattle but payments were not made. Certain queries were raised by respondent No.3, on that enquiry report and another detailed report dated 16-09—1995 was forwarded by the Collector. The Collector sent a memo dated 02-02—1996 (Annexure P—6) to the Secretary, recommending payments to be made to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from various enquiries and reports prepared by the aforesaid authorities, 'it is clear that the petitioner had supplied large number of cattle and huge amount was payable, for which, bills were submitted by him, but without any reason and material basis, the respondents have illegally withheld the entire amount due and payable to the petitioner, and therefore, the respondents, who are State, are obliged to act in a just and fair manner free from arbitrariness and make payment of the balance amount due and payable to the petitioner as indicated in aforesaid enquiry reports in respect of supply of cattle. d '4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the responent submitted that claim of the petitioner for payment of bills is a monetary claim. lt is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent—Corporation that this is a money dispute, for which, appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court as it involves adjudication of seriously disputed questions of fact. Further submission of learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation is that though certain reports were prepared by the Enquiry Committee and the Collector also given his report, the same were not accepted by the respondent-Corporation, therefore, the matter was fonNarded to the State Government 5. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 submitted that the management found that the enquiry committee had not considered certain important aspect, and therefore, the matter was reported to the State Government vide letter dated 23-12-1994 (Annexure R-3/5 & Annexure R-3/6). It is submitted that after the matter was referred to the State Government, the case of the petitioner remained pending there. 6. From the pleading of the parties, it appears that there is a dispute with regard to entitlement of the petitioner to receive payment of Rs.3,52,418/-. While on one hand, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to certain enquiries and reports, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 & 4 has seriously disputed the entitlement of the petitioner and it has been brought on record that the matter was referred to the State Government way back in the year 1995. None of the parties are in a position to state whether the matter has been finally decided by the State Government and if so, payment as has been found due and payable, has been made to the petitioner or not. Therefore, in these circumstances, as it involves seriously disputed question of fact, no relief could , be granted to the petitioner in this petition. However, if the matter is not finally set ‘ at rest at the level of the State Government, the respondent No.3-Corporation r and it‘s office-respondent No.4 shall consider the same. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach all the respondents. Respondent No.4 shall consider the petitioner’s claim for unpaid bills and take decision thereon and shall decide the same at the earliest, In case, the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision taken