IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.16836 of 2009
1. ADARSH MAHILA VIKAS SAHYOG SAMITY LTD. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DINA
SAH LANE, MUNDICHAK, BHAGALPUR-812001, PRESENTLY OPERATIONAL OFFICE AT
JAGANNATH SURI LANE, MANDROJA, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT. BHAGALPUR
2. SUDHA JHA W/O SRI VIRENDRA KUMAR JHA, THE SECRETARY ADARSH MAHILA
VIKAS SAHYOG SAMITY LTD., DINA SAH LANE, MUNDICHAK, BHAGALPUR-812001,
PRESENTLY OPERATIONAL OFFICE AT JAGANNATH SURI LANE, MANDROJA, P.S.
KOTWALI, DISTT. BHAGALPUR
Versus
1. BIHAR STATE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD THROUGH ITS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER MAHESH BHAWAN, GANDHI MAIDAN (EAST), PATNA
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BIHAR STATE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
BOARD, MAHESH BHAWAN, GANDHI MAIDAN (EAST), PATNA
3. MANAGER BIHAR STATE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, CENTRAL
STORE, RADIUM ROAD, RANCHI
4. STATE OF BIHAR
5. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, INDUSTRIES DEPTT., NEW
SECRETARIAT, PATNA
-----------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sajal K. Sinha, AC t6o GP 17
——-
2. 13.12.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Counsel for the State.
The claim of the petitioner, a Society registered under the
Cooperative Societies Act, is for payment of its dues for an
amount of Rs. 1,66,060.11 against the Bihar State Khadi and
Village Industries Board.
Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has
represented on 5.3.2003 notwithstanding which the payment
was not forth coming. Strong reliance is placed on an order of
this Court in CWJC No. 13972 of 2001 when it is submitted that
similar directions for payment have been issued against the
Board.
In CWJC No. 13972 of 2001, it is apparent from
paragraph 5 that the amount due was admitted and not in
dispute. The defence was of paucity of funds. That has no
application to the facts of the present case.
The representation dated 5.3.2003 makes it apparent
that the petitioner itself claims set off for its liabilities urging
financial inability to meet the same and requesting that the
liabilities be adjusted against the dues of the petitioner. That
becomes a matter of accounting clearly beyond the purview of
the writ court in a contractual claim for payment of an
unspecified money claim.
The petitioner has represented on 5.3.2003. If it was not
being acted upon, a Money Suit Could have been filed within the
period of limitation. Long after the period of limitation has
expired, obviously in an attempt to over come the boundaries of
the Limitation Act, the writ application has been preferred
belatedly more than six years later.
There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly
dismissed.
Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)