Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 213 (JHR)

Jagdish Nath And Company v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-02-21

D.K.SINHA, M.Y.EQBAL

body2008
ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.7.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3720 of 2002. The order reads as under: Petitioners grievance is that due to wrong fixation of commission on kerosene oil in the District of Simdega, for the months of March, April and May, 2002, petitioner suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- Paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner and the District Supply Officer reads as follows : 15. That it is stated that the retail price of Kerosene Oil was fixed by respondent No. 2 on 13.3.2002 in ignorance of letters as contained in Annexure-C series as they were not available in newly created district of Simdega. 2. Mr. Modi fairly submitted that though there was a mistake in fixing the commission but the same was bona fide and the same was corrected from the month of June, 2002. He further submitted that due to such mistake petitioners commission got reduced. In other words, he earned less profit during the said period but he did not suffer loss. 3. In my opinion, wrong fixation of commission was a bona fide mistake on the part of the Deputy Commissioner. Petitioner is a businessman. It is not that he got no commission during the said period. It is true that due to wrong fixation of commission, his commission/profit got reduced. Loss and profit are part of the business. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will have no objection to any amount, this Court decides as compensation. In the circumstances, I am inclined to close this chapter by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner in full and final settlement of petitioners claim, within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the specific prayer made in the writ petition was for refund of Rs. 30,000/- from the respondent-Oil Company but no direction has been issued. 5. From perusal of the order, it does not appear that besides the submission for wrong fixation of price argument was advanced for refund of the money also from the Oil Company. 30,000/- from the respondent-Oil Company but no direction has been issued. 5. From perusal of the order, it does not appear that besides the submission for wrong fixation of price argument was advanced for refund of the money also from the Oil Company. It is well settled that there may be more than one relief claimed in the pleading but unless argument is advanced and relief is allowed or disallowed, it cannot be presumed that such relief was claimed in course of argument. It does not reflect from the impugned order that such argument was advanced for direction of the refund of the money from the Oil Company. 6. Be that as it may, the impugned order shows that it is a consent order. Moreover, merely because of the wrong fixation of price the question of payment of compensation, over and above, payment of any amount unless to have been paid by the appellant shall not arise. Besides the above, the order was passed for payment of Rs. 15,000/- towards full and final settlement of the petitioners claim. Accordingly, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 7. This appeal is dismissed.