Sanjay D. Parab v. State Of Goa Thr Chief Secretary And 3 ORS

₹72,424/- by a bearer cheque drawn in the name of the Petitioner. This bearer cheque, it is alleged, was handed over to one Kishor Naik. The said Kishor Naik appropriated the amount in the cheque based, allegedly, on some memorandum of understanding with the Petitioner.

₹72,424/-, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the Respondents No.2 and 3, i.e. the Deputy Director of Panchayats and the Panchayat. Significantly, the Petitioner has neither impleaded the Secretary, who made the payment by bearer cheque, nor the said Kishor Naik, who received the payment. Kishor Naik had made a specific plea that he had supplied materials to the Petitioner and that, based on an understanding with the Petitioner, he had to appropriate this amount. In-ground H of the Petition, even the Petitioner refers to the Settlement of Mutual Understanding dated 29/10/2017. At this stage, we are not concerned with the veracity of the claim or defence. Suffice it to state that this is a purely civil dispute for the recovery of money under a non-statutory contract involving,

inter alia, private parties like Kishor Naik. The dispute between Kishor Naik and the Petitioner cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no semblance of public element involved in this petition. There are seriously disputed questions of fact involved in the matter.

The findings in the Deputy Director's report cannot be equated to the findings that the Civil Court might record or a decree that the Civil Court might make. Besides, the completion certificate for the work allotted to the Petitioner was issued on 20/1/2015. To date, the Petitioner has not instituted any suit for recovery of the amounts allegedly due to him. This Petition was instituted on 7/2/2024. Therefore, after considering the above circumstances cumulatively, we decline to entertain this Petition. However, if the Petitioner has any other remedy available for recovering the amount from the persons from whom such amount is allegedly due, the Petitioner is free to resort to such remedies. We clarify that we have not examined the merits of the matter. Therefore, all parties' contentions are left open for the appropriate authority/forum to decide, in case appropriate proceedings are instituted by the Petitioner.

With the above observations, this Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order for costs.

SANTOSH SHRIDHAR MHAMAL SHRIDHAR MHAMAL Date: 2024.04.03 11:09:50 +05'30'