TAKAM TATUNG Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, under Sec. 226 of the Indian Constitution, is preferred by the petitioner- Shri Takam Tatung, for directing the respondent authorities to release his pending bill, amounting to Rs.75,00,000.00 (Seventy five lakhs) only along with the interest thereon.

(2.) The factual background leading to filing of the present writ petition is adumbrated herein below:

(3.) The respondent authorities' No. 2 to 5, have filed their affidavit-inopposition denying the claim made by the petitioner. It is stated that although the Tourist Lodge at Vintage point (6 miles) between Naharlagun and Itanagar was leased out to the petitioner, to run the cafeteria/restaurant therein, yet the Tourism Department did not approved the proposal/application filed by the petitioner at any point of time and at no point of time he was awarded any such work and at no point of time the Department of Tourism directed the petitioner to submit any bill and it has not instructed the petitioner to invest money in any such construction, which was beyond the knowledge of the Department. And it has not issued any direction for extension of the area of Tourist lodge and the so called measurement and assessment claim to have been done by Junior Engineer of the Tourism Department, assessing the amount of Rs.75,00,000.00 (Seventy five lakhs) only cannot be construed to be an approved pending bill, which is a tentative estimate of expenditure/investment of proposal of the petitioner. The Department has not directed Junior Engineer, Shri Jalaluddin Ahmed, to take measurement and there is no material to show any such instruction as issued by the Director to the Junior Engineer, and the said work is not reflected or recorded in any Measuring Book, which is available in the Tourism Department, and that absence of any work order in favor of the petitioner, there is no question of approval and allocation of fund, and thereof, from the competent authority under the Tourism Department. And in absence of any supportive documents other than the estimate dtd. 1/12/2011, which said to have been prepared by the Junior Engineer of the Department, the Case of the petitioner for payment of the pending bill cannot be considered, since payment of such unaccounted bill, without any approval, would cause unnecessary loss to the State Exchequer. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.