GRAM KALYAN SANSTHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Panchayat (respondents No. 2 & 3) and learned counsel for the State (respondent No. 1).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted a contract work which he successfully completed. Part payment has been made but the balance payment has not been made. Apparently, the Panchayat is supporting the petitioner.

(3.) However, we further find from the counter affidavit of the State Government that it is also the allegation of the State that the work has not been done as required by the scheme. In support of this, an inquiry report has been filed as Annexure-R/1 to the affidavit of the State Government. The said report details the shortcomings in the work alleged to have been done by the petitioner. Although the rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner, none of the shortcomings have been adverted to or met or explained by the petitioner. The only technical defence taken by the petitioner is that he was not a party in the inquiry in which the shortcomings have been found. The petitioner has approached this Court in an equitable and discretionary writ jurisdiction, where this technical defence should not be considered for ordering wrong payment to the petitioner out of public funds. If shortcomings in public works is pointed out in the return, we think it was the basic duty of the petitioner to meet each of those shortcomings in the rejoinder affidavit. The petitioner not having done the same, we refuse to comment further on the shortcomings, but leave it open to the petitioner to institute a civil suit or arbitration (if there is any arbitration agreement), where these disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated.