GHANSHYAM SINGH Vs. KAPIL DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Shyam Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 57781 of 2006 filed by the applicant claiming outstanding dues for the contract carried out by him was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.10.2006 directing the opposite parties to decide the representation to be made by the applicant in this regard within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of order by means of a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance of the order, the representation of the petitioner was decided though his claim was not rejected but no payment was made on account of the fact that original invoice was not available in the office of the opposite party. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing writ petition no. 12981 of 2008. This Court finding that the claim of the petitioner is not being denied by the respondents but only ground for not making payment is non-availability of the original invoice in the office, vide order dated 7.3.2008 directed the r,espondents to make payment of the outstanding amount to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(3.) THE applicant has stated on oath in paragraph 21 of the affidavit filed in support of the application that the certified copy of the order was served in the office of the opposite party no. 4 on 19.03.2008. However, there is no proof or evidence filed by him in support of the said application. On the contrary, the opposite party has asserted that the certified copy of the order along with the representation was served for the first time on 01.02.2010. This is a purely disputed question of fact but in the absence of any documentary evidence or proof brought on record by the applicant, it is difficult to believe that he has served certified copy of order as alleged on 19.03.2008 and thereafter waited for almost two years to approach this Court alleging contempt even though payment of heavy amount was involved.