BAIJNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the pregnability of the Revenue Recovery Certificate (hereinafter referred to as 'rrc') dated 19-8-99 (Annexure P-1) being void, illegal and against the law. The petitioner has further prayed to declare by appropriate writ or order that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and without any authority, power and jurisdiction.

(2.) AS per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is a B-class contractor. He entered into an agreement with the respondents for construction of Dammari approach road from 0 km. to 3 kms. His tender was accepted being the lowest and he was directed to complete the work within 4 months, i. e. , upto 30-9-1984. The petitioner commenced his work from 1-4-1984 and looking to the approaching rainy season completed maximum possible work. The petitioner, on the basis of accepted measurement, submitted his first running bill to the tune of Rs. 3,47,895/which is 80% of the total amount of contract.

(3.) AS per the petitioner, the work undertaken by him was earth work collection of morram with boxing, spreading of morram, collection of stone chips and 40 mm B. T. metal. While the measurement of his first bill was being recorded, the petitioner continued to do the work and during that period completed the collection and boxing of balance quantity of morram required. According to him, the work of spreading of morram and stone chips was also done. The petitioner submitted second running bill on 5-1-1985, i. e. , after the rainy season even though the work was done before the rains. It has been pleaded in the petition that the item of spreading of metal chips was not included in this bill and this was accepted to be included and paid in the subsequent bill as the final measurements have been recorded.