1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION rpa NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 101 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 62 OF 2010 Shri Bipinchandra Shah .. Petitioner. v/s. Hon'ble Minister of State for Co-Operation & Textiles & Ors. .. Respondents. .... Mr. Dipak Mane i/b. Thodur Law Associates for the Applicant in Notice of Motion 101 of 2010 and Respondent in W.P. No. 62 of 2010. Ms. Rita Bhatia for Respondent Notice of Motion 101 of 2010 and Petitioner in W. P. No. 62 of 2010. .... CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : MARCH 12, 2010. P.C. 1. By this Notice of Motion the Respondent Nos. 5 to 12 have sought permission for payment of the following statutory dues which are in excess of Rs. 5,000/- at a time on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 Society. Sr. No. Particular Amount 1. B.M.C. (Water Supply) 28,938.00 2. B.M.C. (Property Tax) 1,76,308.00 3. BEST Consumer No. 100-013-589 80,563.00 2 4. BEST Consumer No. 900-206-591-8 22,357.00 5. BEST & Undertaking 1,01,735.00 6. Dy. Management Service (Security Service) 46,878.00 7. Otis Elevators Pvt. Ltd. 37,000.00 Total = 4,93,779.00 2. The need to take out the present Notice of Motion arose, since this Court by its order dated 20th January, 2010 inter- alia ordered that "Respondent Nos. 5 to 12 shall incur any expenses beyond Rs. 5,000/- at a time, on behalf of the Society and also not enter into any contracts with any party which exceeds Rs. 5,000/- without the permission of this Court.” 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has no objection, if Bills at Serial Nos. 3,4 and 6 are allowed to be paid. However, they are objecting to payments being made as regards Bills at Serial Nos. 1,2,5 and 7. As far as Bill at Serial No. 7 is concerned, Respondent Nos. 5 to 12 have stated that they are not pressing for any orders as the same can be paid after the elections of the Society are held on 20th March, 2010. The objection as regards the Bill Nos. 1,2 and 5 raised by the Petitioner is that the Bills pertain to the period 3 2008-2009 and that the Respondents or the Administrator could have paid the amount as and when the Bills were received. There is, therefore, no need to seek orders at this stage from the Court for making immediate payments of the said Bills. In a query put by the Court to the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, whether the said Bills are disputed by the Petitioners, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted that due to paucity of time the Petitioners have not made an indepth study of the Bills. 4. In my view, since the Bills at Serial No. 1,2 and 5 are the Bills raised by the BMC and the BEST undertaking for charges towards the water supply, property taxes and electricity, the same ought to be paid to the Authorities, at the earliest, and payment of the same will not prejudice the Petitioners, if the Respondent Nos. 5 to 12 are directed to make the said payments, without prejudice or under protest. 5. In view thereof, the following order is passed : :: O R D E R :: 4 i. Respondent No.5 to 12, shall pay the Bills set out at Serial Nos. 1 to 6 in paragraph No.1 above. However, Respondent Nos. 5 to 12 shall pay Bills at Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 5 without prejudice / under protest to the Authorities. 6. The Notice of Motion is, accordingly, disposed of with no order as to costs. [ S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]