M.Bhaskaran v. The Director Of Town
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.06.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.4611 of 2019 M.Bhaskaran ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Director of Town Panchayat Directorate of Town Panchayat Kuralagam, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Dindigul.
3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat Collectorate Complex, Dindigul 4.The Executive Officer, Ayyampalayam Town Panchayat, Ayyampalayam Dindigul District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 4th respondent herein to disburse a sum of Rs.6,90,872/- being the balance amount of refundable deposit amount/additional deposit amount paid by the petitioner during the period of contract works executed by the petitioner during 2011-2016 by considering his representation dated 21.12.2018 within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate
ORDER
The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 4th respondent to disburse a sum of Rs.6,90,872/- being the balance amount of refundable deposit amount paid by the petitioner during the period of contract works executed by the petitioner during 2011-2016 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 21.12.2018.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the due payable by the respondents, especially, the fourth
respondent is Rs.6,90,872/-, the said amount has not been paid and only part amount to the extent of Rs.3,43,043/- alone was paid and therefore, in order to get back the remaining amount, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. However, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, as against the very same cause of action to get back the amount, which has been deposited to the account of the petitioner, being a Contractor, the petitioner has already filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.16747 of 2017, where, this Court, after hearing both sides, by order dated 11.09.2017, has passed an order directing the second respondent in that writ petition to refund the amount of Rs.3,43,043/- and that has also been paid to the petitioner and the receipt of the same also has been acknowledged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. When that being so, according to the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, there cannot be any further claim, as has been claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition, as there is no scope for anything in this writ petition against the very same cause of action, which has been cleared and concluded by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.16747 of 2017 and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have considered the said submissions made by either side.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the actual amount payable by the respondents to the petitioner is not Rs.3,43,043/- and since the respondents admitted the said amount before the learned Judge in the first round of litigation, the learned Judge directed the respondents to pay the said amount, that does not mean that after the said amount of Rs.3,43,043/-, the entire due payable to the petitioner has been paid. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, still some more amount has to be paid, which comes for Rs.6,90,872/- being the balance. Therefore, in order to get back the said amount, the present writ petition has been filed. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted by this Court, as the said argument is no more available for the petitioner to put forward before this Court at this juncture, because the learned Judge, vide, order dated 11.09.2017 in W.P.(MD) No.13747 of 2017 has passed the following order:
"3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has produced a copy of the communication of the 2nd respondent dated 08.09.2017, which is addressed to him, wherein the 2nd respondent has admitted that the petitioner is entitled to get the refund of a sum of Rs.3,43,043/-, after deducting all the amounts payable by the petitioner to the Panchayat.
4.Such being the case, this Court directs the respondents, especially the 2nd respondent to refund the said amount of Rs.3,43,043/- to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without causing any further delay. 5.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs."
8. Pursuant to the said order, the said amount of Rs.3,43,043/- has been paid and which has been mentioned by the respondents in their counter affidavit at Paragraph No.7, which reads thus:
"7.I respectfully state that in the above circumstances the present dispute now raised by the petitioner is without any basis, disputed amount or disputed fact cannot be raised in a writ petition under writ jurisdiction, especially, when the petitioner having agreed, admitted and received the Rs.3,43,043/- as per the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 11.09.2017 made in WP(MD) No.16747 of 2017 as final settlement of his refund. Hence, the present writ petition with the facts and relief claimed are not only disputed in material particulars, but contradictory to the earlier case, order of this Hon'ble Court and bereft of material details. Hence the present writ petition is vexatious, misleading and mischievous."
9. Since the learned Judge, after hearing both sides, has come to the conclusion that the amount payable to the petitioner by the respondents was only Rs.3,43,043/-, as the said amount was arrived at by the respondents, after deducting all the amount payable by the petitioner to the panchayat, the quantum of the said amount is no more disputed, in view of the conclusive direction given by the learned Judge at Paragraph No.4 of the said order, as extracted above, where the learned Judge has given directions to the respondents to pay only that amount, ie., Rs.3,43,043/- and not beyond that.
10. If at all the petitioner disputed the said amount, the same could have been reflected in the order of the learned Judge in the said writ petition, that the said amount of Rs.3,43,043/- is an admitted amount and whatever disputed amount can be re-agitated by the petitioner in the manner known to law. There is no such observation or finding in the said order by the learned Judge. Therefore, this Court can safely conclude that, the issue has been concluded by the learned Judge in the said order by giving a direction to the respondents to pay only Rs.3,43,043/-.
11. If at all there is any grievance for the petitioner with regard to the quantum of the amount, which was directed to be paid by the direction of this Court, the petitioner could have agitated the issue by filing an appeal, if he is advised to do so. However,
since the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said order of the learned Judge, made in W.P.(MD) No.16747 of 2017 dated 11.09.2017, this Court also come to the conclusion that the issue has been settled between the parties and the said amount of Rs.3,43,043/- has also been paid by the respondents and the same has been acknowledged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, this Court is of the view that, it cannot show any further indulgence, insofar as the present prayer in seeking further amount from the respondents. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, this order shall not prevent the petitioner to agitate the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.16747 of 2017 dated 11.09.2017 in the manner known to law. No costs. sd/ Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) To
1. The Director of Town Panchayat Directorate of Town Panchayat Kuralagam, Chennai.
2. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Dindigul.
3. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat Collectorate Complex, Dindigul
4. The Executive Officer, Ayyampalayam Town Panchayat, Ayyampalayam, Dindigul District.
+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-67103[F] dated 06/06/2019 ) +1 CC to MR.J.LAWRANCE, Advocate ( SR-67317[F] dated 07/06/2019 ) W.P.(MD)No.4611 of 2019 04.06.2019 rr MK (19.06.2019) 4P 7C