Sunil Gajanan Naik v. State Of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary And ANR

WP 564 of 2022 Meena

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.564 OF 2022 SUNIL GAJANAN NAIK ... PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF GOA, THR. ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS Mr Kishan Kavlekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr Geetesh Shetye, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents - State. CORAM:- M. S. SONAK & BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED :- 27th September, 2023 P.C.:

1. Heard Mr Kishan Kavlekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr D. Pangam, learned Advocate General with Mr Geetesh Shetye, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents - State.

2. Learned Advocate General submits that the approval has been granted ex post facto for the amount for which the work was carried out by the petitioner and the same will be paid within six weeks. The statement is accepted. Prayer in the present petition stands worked and accordingly, we propose to dispose of the present petition. However, we feel that no case for a grant of interest is made out as claimed in the petition.

27th September, 2023

WP 564 of 2022

3. We say so since the work which the petitioner carried out was only in view of the High Court directions in the earlier petition. The said work was not tendered or sanctioned by the Government. The directions by the High Court were only on the ground that the supply of water continued. The Government considered the above aspect and accordingly took time to grant sanction ex post facto to pay the amount for the work done by the petitioner. Thus, we consider that a claim of interest raised by the petitioner is not required to be accepted since the Government has now sanctioned the amount though ex post facto.

4. The petition accordingly stands disposed of. BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

M. S. SONAK, J.

MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Date: 2023.09.28 12:10:21 +05'30'

MEENA VISHAL BHOIR 27th September, 2023