M/S Kapoor Chand And Sons Bilaspur v. Municipal Corporation Korba And ANR.

i) @ mvmixm wmh EN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, WRIT PETITION (C) No.

60am /zo11 /V PETITIONER M/s Kapoor Chand & Sons, Bilaspur a propriefor'ship firm Through ifs Propriefor Shri Mukesh Chand Ghai, son Shri K.C.

Ghai, aged years, residem'

Gondpara, Bilasur'

p Tehsil & Disfrjc'r Bilaspur (CG) Vs 1, Municipal Corporah'on, 'Korba RESPONDENTS fhrough ifs Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba 2.

Executive Engineer, wwm$w$6;:<\ $\/ 9E") AW Bani; ofMaharashira Through its Branch Manager Bilaspur Branch, WRIT PETITIOFé) Madhyanagan' Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) LR J, M%atlli CONS'

/ wyéAAW'

"9 \\\ é§ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.

BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

Writ Petition (c ) No. 5090 of 2011 PETITIONER M/s.

Kapoor Chand & Sons, Bilaspur

Versus

RESPONDENTS Municipal Corporation, Korba and '

others ,5 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF'THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA pearance :

hri u o ate for the Petitioner.

Shri Malay S Shri B .D. Gur Respondents 1 and 2.

h f Shri Saurabh S NAVIN SINHA, ACTING c.J.

W Gian 1.

We have heard Learned Counsel for Respondent-Corporation as also for the Bank of Maharashtra. \1 2.

The Respondent-Corporation published a Notice Inviting Tender for installation of a Conference System in a Conference Hall, Korba on 15.7.2008.

The Petitioner inter a/ia was a tenderer. On 14.8.2008 he was informed that the Tender process has been cancelled and the bid documents were being returned to him. The Petitioner had deposited for Rs.7,500/- towards Earnest Money therefore requested for return of the amount also.

WPc 5090/2011 3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that thereafter the Petitioner wrote several letters in 2008, 2009 and 2011 for refund of the Earnest Money.

On 29.3.2011 the Respondent-Corporation informed that it had released the F.D.R. in favour ofthe Bank on 291 .2009. Bank however has informed him writing that it has never been received by it.

is therefore entitled to-refund of the Earnest Money amount with interest.

4.

Learned'Co'unsel'fi'f'orrtheji'Qorporation from extract spatch Register submits that the FDR. was returned to the Bank Petitioneric':who_ signed spatt:

"Register.

He next submits that the e :

when even a money suit was barred writ petition was filed '

- money claim simplicitor.

y 5.

Learned Counsglafgg @ééBank submitted that it has already informed the Petitioner in writing that no F.D.R. had been received by it.

6.

We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 7.

lt is no universal rule that a writ petition will not lie for a money claim when the facts are not in dispute and neither is the amount. The objection that a money suit for refund of money would not have been maintainable on date that the writ petition was filed, merits no consideration in view of the acknowledgement by the Corporation on 29.3.2011 that it had released favour of the Bank on

wpc 5n90/2o11 29.1 .2009.

8.

lf the F.D.R. was deposited as Earnest Money along with the bid documents, we find the conduct of the Respondent-Corporation a little unusual ln handing over with a covering letter dated 29.1.2009 to a representative of the instead of the Bank.

The counter affidavit is completely silent with regard to the name of the person who received it on behalf Petitioner.

normal circumstances eith'eri-the'" employee Corporation would have taken it to the Bank and It would have been received by the Bank in Its sueg Despatch Section granting acknowledgement on s Register or separa e may be.

conduct tel s Corporation in handin .R. with a covering letter addressed g to the Bank to a perso iated with the Bank, in our opinion, is n"

c an act for which theCorporatio must bear the consequences. We are also not unmindful of th "ove$riting both on the letter addressed to the Bank as also on the Despatch Register.

9.

lf the Respondent-Corporation has not been able to satisfy us that the FDR. was dispatched to the Bank normal course business by a normal mode of transmission and on the contrary the entire action of the Corporation appears to be different from what is required to be done in the normal course of business, the Corporation must bear the consequences.

10.

The Petitioner is held entitled to the sum of Rs.7,5QQ/- along with interest at the Bank rate from 29.1 .2009 till the date of payment which

>4 WPC 5090/2011 must be paid to him by the Corporation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before competent authority Corporation.

Nothing prevents Respondent-Corporation from holding inquiry fixing responsibility in house and recovering the same from the erring person. 11.

The Respondent-Bank shaii proceed to cancei the its records.

12.

The Writ Petition isj-allOWed;'

i:

, _..r r Sd/- SdlGoutam Bhaduri Acting Chief Justice Judge sunita