KIRITKUMAR TRIKAMBHAI PATEL Vs. DDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave to correct the date in the prayer clause as ?15.7.1996 (Annexure ?B?)?, and Mr.Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, declares that there is no challenge to the communication/sanction order dated 17.10.1995 (Annexure ?A?).

(2.) The only question arises for consideration is whether the respondent authorities can refuse to make the payment, on the ground that in the subsequent year as the rate quoted was of lesser amount or not ?

(3.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner had supplied registers to the respondent having size of 7.5? x 12.5?. For such purpose, the bills were also submitted by the petitioner at the rate of Rs.180/-. It is not in dispute that the bills were also sanctioned. However, before the amount was actually disbursed, a communication dated 15.7.1996 was addressed by the Additional District Health Officer to the petitioner intimating that in the present year the rate of 7.5? x 12.5? register of 50 pages was sanctioned of Rs.150/- and, therefore, for the previous year, it should be of Rs.130/- to Rs.140/- and, therefore, the petitioner was called upon to submit the revised bills at the rate of Rs.130/- and it was further stated that the matter will be considered for payment thereafter. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present petition.