High Court Jharkhand High Court

M/S Ramesh Kumar Thr Its Prope vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 4 January, 2010

Jharkhand High Court
M/S Ramesh Kumar Thr Its Prope vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 4 January, 2010
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              W.P. ( C) No. 536 of 2009

               M/s Ramesh Kumar                              ....Petitioner
                                           Versus
                  1.   The   State of Jharkhand.
                  2.   The   Deputy Commissioner, Dumka.
                  3.   The   Deputy Development Commissioner, Dumka.
                  4.   The   District Welfare Officer Dumka. .....Respondents

               Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. MERATHIA
                                         ---------
               For the Petitioner        : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
               For the State             : JC to AG
                                         --------
4/4.1.2010

Heard.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of
repeated requests, the respondents have not paid the admitted dues
of the petitioner against supply of articles pursuant to the supply
order Memo No. 78 dated 27.1.2006 and Memo No. 213 dated
18.3.2006 to the Aklabya Modal School, Kathijoriya and all Scheduled
Tribe Residential Schools running under the control of Welfare
Department within the Dumka District.

Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that it
is not known whether the claim of the petitioner is admitted or
disputed and to what extent.

In the circumstances, petitioner is given liberty to make a
fresh representation before the concerned respondent within three
weeks from today. If it is found that any claim of the petitioner is
admitted, the same should be paid. On the other hand, if it is found
that any claim/part of it is disputed, the reasons thereof should be
communicated to him. This exercise should be completed within six
weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the
merits of the claim of the petitioner.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition
is disposed of.

( R. K. Merathia, J)
Rakesh/