Rajesh Kumar Nain v. Sub Divisional Engineer
RAJESH KUMAR NAIN
!
" #####
!"#$ % &
!
' ( "") * % & +++++
"$ ,& & -% ' $ ../0..1%& 2' % % !3 4'
&3 % 5 .67 .898.9:6;<' =>(& -*$% 3 :6 $ $ ?- 2 - 3% - 5& & -'-*& '- # 3 ;'- $ ) & 3 3>" '- #." - " $ " & &- %
9@98.9:6 ;<' 8> -* & 5 !
;'- $ * $ - 3 .7=@ % .9:8 A&
$& 3 55" # ' '-# 3 ;'- $) & 33> '-#." - " $
-2- . ,& (& '& B2# 2 $ 3 (&& 5( &( !%'35 %
( 3 $&5 - ,(" $ # 5 ==/=/7 :@96.9:8 $ 5 & & % ( ! ( ' ! -* & $5 " .9:6 (&' * $5 & ' <$' & % 3 5 ( <$' -( & & 5 2 ' ./& % ' "26:- Any damage of existing sewer/water supply/telephone line will be the responsibilities of contractor to make in good condition without any extra payment."
3.
It is averred that the petitioner had executed/completed the work within prescribed time frame and the same was also duly inspected by the respondent-department whereupon it was found to be executed as per the standards and the specifications prescribed by the respondent-authorities. However, the petitioner was surprised on receipt of a Memo No. 258 dated 24.04.2015 whereby the respondent-department asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs against the claim of BSNL for Optical Fibre Cable (OFC) Damage - 5& ' & 5-&' '5"&
" - % 33 & '3& & -# $" & -$ 5 & & & % $ & 5-% & 5
' $..;2>%& 3 #$'& $":@71 & - & 5 ,& $ 5 & & 5# ' *5 &5 -'&$ 5 -*& & $* % & $ -% & 5 !
-3-
;'- $ * '$&&( - % & )&'& 3&% (&& *5 3 $ % !3 % & (&& 5' ( -* & & 5 .191.9:1 ,& %& % 5' $ $2 './ %&3 5,& ( & % % -*& 8 ( 5 -& % % 5 & '3&C - 3&" '-# 3 ;'- $) & 3 3>
'-#. - " $ ( % !3 $%$ & & & - ( ! % '35 % ( 3
$&5 - " $ '
*3% DB .9955"=9955 5 "$# $ '$% )2& 5- %# ' B & $3 ( ! 5 3 $ ' ( ' * $ &3 5./8%.9:8 (&&
(&$&& $ $ (' - - % * 3 *<3 ( 0( ' *0 & ' 3&<$'% &( ! (&' * *5( # & & !$ %<3 & %&
$& 3 55
' * 3&$ ?- 2 - % ,& % % & % $ 5-% & 5
;'- $ * (&$&( $% #' %& & 5( 5 - *& % 5'% :69 $ $$ 3 *" 5 % & $ $ &
3 5" & 5 ( $# &
5'% 5& ,& 5'4'& #3-
-4- -*& 5# $ 9:96.9:6"& $% & 3 & 5* % 5 & 5' ' & $ - & - - # % & * 5 $%&$ $<$'-(& ( $%$ * $-*& 5& & ( %& $3 % -* % 5 & # * -33 -' 5 % & $ -* & 5 !
;'- $ *
% 5 3&5 #& % "$55'$ %&
( &5E*&$& *4'% 9.* 6
#&'3&& % ( 5& -% -* & 5:@98.9:7"&(# " 0 $ $ # 3& %& ( % -*&
% *96* / 2' % & & '-5 & & 4' & - (&' 5 3 & & & 5# % 5& -'&$*%
% $ 5 0 & $ -% & 5 !
;'- $ * 24' *"&$ -& - %
* &5)%' & $& & & $ ' * 3&$ ?- 2 - %& & & $ -& - $$'% * 3$ '-* *& * & -$% - &3& & 3&$ ?- 2 - (
' %&( !' !-*& " $# *%&' % 5& %',& 5'4'&' #- 5-' &
-51 $ " $' % & & '-5 & & $ 5 % 3 ' 3 & 5 % ( ! & -
-*& 5
;'- $ * E& & - - - && & 3&$ ?- - & $$ (& & ( ! ' ! -* & ?' & " & &3 $ '- & & 3 & $ ?- 2 - & ! $& '(& &( !& - ' ! -* & ?' & " & 4' ( -* 5
;'- $ * (& $%$ & - -* & 5 & & & ( & 2 $ ( - %% $ 50 3 & & # - '%% -* & ' * 3& ( 0'- $) &0 ,& # < $%&
% 3& - $ -*& &' "2. The respondent appeared and filed the written reply of the petition contesting the same on the grounds that the petitioner has no cause of action and Locus -Standi to file the petition; that the petition is bad for non- joinder of collector, Sirsa, Executive Engineer of PWD (Public Health) and Contractor Sh. Rajesh Kumar Nain; that the petitioner is estopped from filling the present petition by his own act and conduct because before starting the work, a notice bearing No. 418 dated 20.06.2014 was issued by the respondent to the petitioner for giving demarcation but the petitioner did not take any action on that notice nor deputed any persons to give the alignment of the optical fibre cable; that the petition is not maintainable in the present form as the subject matter of this petition does not fall within the preview of public utility services; that this Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition; that the petitioner has concealed the true
-6and material facts; that the respondent -Department in formed the petitioner for deputing any person during the excavation of work for giving the alignment but the petitioner-Department failed to submit the alignment map or depute any person at the site; that the petition is false and frivolous; that the cable laid by BSNL was not as per specification as the alignment was not correct and the depth and distance was not proper.
no protection over the cable was provided, therefore, BSNL is personally responsible for the loss; that no damage was caused to telephone cable by the respondent ; that the work of repairing water pipe line is also a matter of public utility and it could not be stopped; that the demand notice served by the petitioner to the respondent was devoid of merit, therefore, the same was ignored; that the work of repairing water pipe line is still carried out within the territory of opposite Bhambhu Petrol Pump, Nohar Road, Ellenabad, District Sirsa but the petitioner has not supplied the route map of cables to the respondent with these averments, the respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the petition."
8.
The contention of the respondent-department was declined by the 5
;'- $ * ( $%$ * - # & & $ $ ( ! ' & 5,& 3 5"$*(& %& - $ $ %& 5
;'- $ * *5 -& & - *( 3 & 5 $# $# & 5'% 3 % 5 & 2 $ ' & 5 $%& 3 54',& # < $%& &'
!
-7-
"
" # $
" %
# " !& '( #
# $
#"!&'($ "
# " !&'(
'
#
!&'( ) " #
$ #
!& '( * $
" #
+ " !&', " "* # "
"
#
' - . /012,1/3 $
"
"
& "*
,114,1/3
#
#"!&'(
"* ,/14,1/3"" #
"
!&'( "
,14,1/3
"
" #
* "
" "* $ !&'(
#
-85 $
# #
"* % "
#' - .
# " !&',
$
# #"
' - . 6 "*
7
#"!&'," &
"
' - .
$
"
# ' - .
$
#
$
#
'
#
' - . "
!&' , 0 7
" # "
# '/ 21 1118$
# " !& ,
,14,1/3$
(
#" !&',
#
"
,4,1/3" #
(9
: #
#
$
(
"
#
-9- " !& , " #
#
$ " #
#
#
"
# % $
"
#
#
$
#
# #
# # " #
$
#
#
+ "
# #
" #
$ "
"
#
*
/1 - * #
#
# &
"*
#
# $
7
-10-
*
* * " #$
#
#
# ; 9.
By referring to the above, counsel for the petitioner contends that the 5 !
;'- $ * 3 # $%$ %3& & 3&$ ?- 2 - & -$ '(& ' !3 & % ( ! & & %3 & #3 - " & $ $ 5 55'* % 5 $5 3 & 5% & ' -*&5 :9 & #& $' 3% & $#
& #3& '3&&$'5 # - $ :: ,& 4' (&$& $5 ' % $ % & 2' (&& & ( (&& &'5% :69 $% 5&' *5%& &- %& -*& 5
;'- $ * 12.
Perusal of the Clause 26 of the Agreement dated 19.05.2014 extracted above establishes that the respondent-department was entitled to be indemnified for any damage to existing Sewer/Water Supply/telephone lines without any extra payment. It is, hence, entitled to be held harmless against any claim lodged against it.
13.
The petitioner has not challenged the existence of the Agreement or the clauses thereof. Further, even though the petitioner has challenged the recovery on the basis of the -* & 5 !
;'- $ * " &(# " &
-11- $& 3& %& -*& 5
;'- $ * " & & % * -'& -3 '$5%& $#*' !-* &5-3%' * %& # # & ( ! & ' ( ' ! -* &5 & 333 ( ' ! -* * & 0 3$* % * & ( ! ?' & " # &'3&& 3 '%& & & $# *# % $ % '
C'$"&(# "& $&% * $ 0 &$%$ % -*& !3 &- $& & ( %& $3 $# * E $& *4'% *9.* ,& %-3
-*& &' 4' -% &5 :8 )$" & '' * ' $ $'
- 3 & & & 5 * 0 3 $ 5'%% -*?
' %& $& 3& # $ *$'5&(&$$ & & 3(
$$' % * $#* ' ! -* &5 $' (& & % $ & &
( -*& -*& 5
;'- $ *
% & 3$ '&$ ?- 2 - % $ & & 3 ( $ ' & $ ?- ' 3 & <$'%&( !4' & & - & & 5& 5 :6 The grievance espoused by the petitioner is that he was never made aware of the claim having been lodged against them and hence, he is not
-12liable to indemnify the respondent-department of such loss has to be rejected for failure to controvert the specific plea in defence as well. 16.
The question which next arises is as to whether the petitioner was to be granted any opportunity of hearing before any such recovery is effected or not. The above-said principles apply where an authority carries out an adjudication or determination of an issue resulting in prejudice to a civil right of the person. The primary question which thus comes to fore is whether the recovery in question is an outcome of an adjudication or determination by the respondents or is solely a consequential act. 17.
There is no evidence on record on the basis whereof it can be alleged that the demand/recovery made by the respondents was based upon an arbitrary/discriminatory act of the employer/department. The levy of the amount was pursuant to an award passed by the 5
;'- $ * ?' & "&- $ 3 & ' !3 & ( ! - $4'
05 % & $ * *& -' * ,& - $( &(# ' (-*& 5
;'- $ * ,& 553 & -*3& 5' (&' * $ '3 %' & &
$# *( &$ 5 $4' $ :7 ?' & "$ './%& 3 5'
3 3 % * '* % & 3 -% '$& 5%$ # " & $ 5& - -*& &- % -* & 5
;'- $ * )$"& $ % & '%% % 5 & #$ % - "
-13- $ 5 $ % 5 ,& % & & & $' !5%$ 0 $# *%& 3 * % % $ *3 ' 5 % & 3 % 3 3 &( 2 ' $ (' & '$% 3& '$ % 5$& 5% 5%$ &$ $*'$&'33# ! * $' % !3 $# *%& 3 5' % & 3 5 D& & $ % '& 3 (&' ' $"& $' !& 3&% -*& 5
;'- $ * (&$&
! 2# 2' $ "$ - - 3 '' -
5 % -3 # % $ % '
C'$ * $ "& -*& & & 3&$ ?- - ( ' % & $#* ' ! -* &5 - '4'%% $,& 5$ - 5-*)3&$' ( ' $,&( % '$ #(&<%< 53 (&& & $% '%% % 5 *#$% 3 *F 3'
*F
- F *F '$ 5 *F 5 $F& & $ 5 #(%&$& -$%
-# :@ %& & 3 * % 5*& $%& '& %%$3 $# *0 3& 5'% :69
$( 3 -*& 5
;'- $ * ,& 5 *% #" !3 $'
-14-
5*% !3 '$ %&'4'% % $ ,& $$ 3 *% %
"& $ < D&& !30 G0 D&& - G0