Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S.SANJAY MALVIYA versus STATE & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S.SANJAY MALVIYA v STATE & ORS - CW Case No. 1130 of 2003 [2005] RD-RJ 810 (8 April 2005)

S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.1130/2003

M/s. Sanjay Malviya vs

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER : - 08.4.2005

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J.

Mr. KK Shah,for the petitioner.

Mr. SN Tiwari, Dy.GA, for the respondents-State

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The only grievance of the petitioner is that the order has been passed by the Director Mines on 23rd March, 2002 wherein it has been held that petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs.44580/-. That order has not been complied with by the department itself though the Director,

Mines has passed the order. The petitioner even served the notice for demand of justice upon the respondents through his advocate dated 2nd

July, 2002, but payment has not been made.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents are demanding the bond for refund of the amount for which there is no reason. It is also submitted that the petitioner be awarded interest on the amount, which has been detained by the respondents without any reason.

Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the petitioner was under obligation to submit a bond for refund of the amount and, therefore, the bond was rightly demanded.

I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 23rd March, 2002 passed by the Director,

Mines wherein the Director, Mines clearly held that the petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs.44580/-. In view of the above, there was no reason for demanding the bond because of the reason that the Director,

Mines must have passed the order after considering all relevant facts for the refund of the amount. Apart from it, now more than three years have passed and till today it is not the case of the respondents- department that anybody has raised any objection about the refund of the amount to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the order dated 23rd March, 2002 has not been cancelled yet. There is no explanation why the order was not complied with.

In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, hence allowed. The respondents are directed to comply with their own order dated 23rd March, 2002 and they shall pay the amount of

Rs.44580/- to the petitioner in pursuance to their own order dated 23rd

March, 2002. Since the respondents deliberately did not pay the amount even after the order dated 23rd March, 2002, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum from the date 23rd March, 2002 till the amount is paid. The principal amount alongwith interest be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from today.

(Prakash Tatia), J. c.p.goyal/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.