CAMARA MUNICIPAL DE BARDEZ Vs. FIRMA V M SALGAONKAR E IRMAO LIMITED OR V M SALGAONKAR AND BROS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. I see no merit in this petition.

(2.) THE grievance of the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called "the respondent") is that the petitioner has not so far drawn the "final Bill" in respect of the works carried out by them and that the Bill which was signed and wherein the respondent had confirmed all the objections raised earlier was not prepared according to law. The further grievance is that the objection raised by the respondent has also not been adjudicated by the petitioner in terms of Article 29 of the Contract and section 61 of the "lei de Empreitada". Therefore the question of the respondent having been allegedly paid or fully paid by the petitioner all their dues for the work done is not the real issue in controversy.

(3.) THE petitioner contends that the Bill signed by the respondent is the Final Bill and whatever claims which were raised by the respondent have been already rejected by the petitioner by its earlier Resolutions dated 13th September, 1963 and 5th February, 1964 which were not at all challenged either by way of "recurso gracioso" or "recurso contencioso". The consequence of this inaction on the part of the respondent is that whatever position was assumed by the petitioner has become res judicata and cannot be changed at this stage. Thus the decision given by its Resolution dated 12th September, 1968 amounts only to a reassertion of the previous stand taken by the petitioner and against which no appeal could lie to the Administrative Tribunal before whom such challenge is not maintainable.