M/S Kailash Electric And Sound Service v. Chhattisgarh State Election Commission
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 316 of 2016 M/s Kailash Electric & Sound Service Through Its Proprietor Rajesh Yadav, S/o Shri Kailashchand Yadav, Aged About 47 Years, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Through The Chief Electoral Officer, Shashtri Chowk Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. The District Election Officer Cum Collector, District Sukma Chhattisgarh
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department E/ M, Sukma Sub Division, District Sukma Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Manish Nigam, Advocate.
For State/respondent No.2 & 3 : Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 08/02/2016 Heard.
1.
The grievance of the petitioner as ventilated through this petition is that though the petitioner was engaged by District Election Officer for providing certain services at prescribed rates vide letter dated 10.10.2013, the bills of the petitioner have not been fully paid.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a part of his bill has been paid but still full payment has not been made. He submits that notice through lawyer was also given but till date, no steps have been taken.
3.
It is a matter of dispute between an individual and State
authority including the State Election commission. Therefore, the State authorities are required to act fairly. Whatever is the undisputed amount, is required to be paid at the earliest. The petitioner has stated that a part payment has been made. Let the respondent No.2 get the entire claim of the petitioner examined and decision be taken in the case of the petitioner within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount which is found due and payable to the petitioner according to the scrutiny of the respondent No.2 shall be paid to him forthwith, not later than four weeks. However, if any claim of the petitioner is rejected, he shall be informed by a speaking order within that period of four weeks and thereafter, it will be open for the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law.
4.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition is disposed off.
Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) J U D G E Rekha