PRIKSHAT SINGH MANHAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claimed to be an outstanding sports person and excelled well in various national and international events. The petitioner was a member of Indian Roller Hockey Team which participated in 30th Roller Hockey World Cup at Andorra from 7th to 14th October, 1992. Pursuant to selection of the petitioner for the said World Cup, he participated in the said event and incurred huge expenses during the said international event in which he along with other participants represented the country. It is the case of the petitioner that he has incurred expenses of Rs.98,570/ - on this count. The expenditure includes actual air fare, to and fro from Spain and other expenses. These expenses were incurred by the petitioner after having received specific assurance from respondent No.2 that same will be meted out by the respondents. On this assurance, the petitioner proceeded to participate in the World Cup in Spain and incurred the expenses of Rs.98,570/ -. On his return, he submitted the details of expenditure to the respondents and sought its release in his favour. The detail of the expenditure is given in Annexure -A attached to the writ petition. The petitioner has claimed Rs.98,570/ - which includes to and fro fare from Spain, boarding and lodging and air fare from Barcelona to Andorra (Spain) and back. Said bills were submitted by the petitioner in the year 1994.

(2.) THE respondents have filed objections wherein they have refused to release the payment despite the bills having been submitted by the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents is that General Secretary, Amatear Roller Skating Association, J&K had requested for financial assistance of Rs.53,000/ - for meeting the expenses of the Skaters for participation in the World B. Roller Hockey Championship. The Association had furnished the bills of Rs.31,947/ - as expenditure incurred by the petitioner. It is further stated by the respondents that the petitioner on its own submitted the detail of expenditure of Rs.98,570/ - which is contrary to the one submitted by the Association. It is also averred that the petitioner has not submitted the proof of actual expenses incurred by him. Faced with this situation, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse the amount to the petitioner on account of expenditure incurred by him.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Undoubtedly, respondent No.2 is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. An appropriate writ, order or direction can be issued against it. Being the State within the meaning of Article 12, certain obligations are casts upon it, which it is required to perform. Any violation of fundamental rights can be enforced against respondent No.2. The petitioner grievance is that on the assurance given by respondent No.2, he participated in the World Cup Skating Roller in Spain and had incurred an amount of Rs.98,570/ -. He further states that the persons whose detail is given in para 9 (a) of the writ petition have been reimbursed by the respondents for the amount which they have spent on account of their participation in the events conducted outside India whereas the petitioner has been singled out and discriminated.