Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 106 (JHR)

Satya Narain Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2011-02-17

R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that in spite of the communication, he has not received any instructions for filing counter-affidavit. 2. Mrs. Sweta Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner worked as Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) between April 1997 to March 2001. The bills of professional fees against the said work amounting to Rs. 70,000/- and odd was submitted in the year 2001 itself but the Petitioner has not received any communication on that in spite of repeated representations made to the concerned Secretary through the office of the Advocate General. She further submitted that the Petitioner is now ailing and needs money for his treatment. She also relied on the order reported in 2005 (3) JCR 148 (Jhr) Arvind Kumar Mehta v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., and submitted that a general direction was issued for evolving a system under which action is taken on the bills within three months at the most, for paying the undisputed bills and communicating the disputed amount, if any. 3. In the absence of counter-affidavit, it has to be accepted that the Petitioner submitted the bills. If there was any dispute regarding them, the same should have been informed to the Petitioner alongwith undisputed payment. 4. In the . circumstances, the Petitioner is permitted to furnish the bills a fresh through the office of the Advocate General to Respondent No. 2-Secretary. Department of Law and Justice, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, within two weeks from today. The Respondent No. 2 will look into the matter and do the needful. If the bills are not disputed, the same should be paid. If any part of the bills are disputed, reasons thereof, should be communicated to the Petitioner. This exercise should be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the bills. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the Petitioner. 6. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.