Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 25 (MAN)

Shangreihan Muivah v. State of Manipur and Ors.

2015-02-06

KH.NOBIN SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Mark Khapai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri R.S. Reisang, Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 4 & 5 and Shri Th. Rommel, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for releasing the security deposit for a sum of Rs. 14,14,716/- within a stipulated period. 3. According to the petitioner, he is a Special Class Contractor, CPWD and Special Class Contractor, MPHC by profession. The petitioner was awarded a contact work for the construction of Road Tamei Block under PMGSY Phase-II, Package No. MN-0701 Tamenglong District, Manipur for an amount of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- (rupees two crores twenty lakhs), 10% of which was deposited by the petitioner towards security deposit. The Petitioner completed the said contract work on 25-02-2006 which was inaugurated by the then Hon'ble Minister of DRDA. 4. Normally such security deposit is to be refunded by the concerned authority after six months from the date of completion of the contract depending upon the size of the work. Since the security deposit was not refunded even after a lapse of more than a year, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 16-10-2007 to the Executive Engineer Division No. 1, PWD which was forwarded to the Chief Engineer, PWD vide its letter dated 20-10-2007 showing the amount to be refunded as Rs. 14,14,716/-. Non release of the said security deposit has prompted the petitioner to file the present writ petition. 5. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents No. 2 & 5, it is stated that out of Rs. 14,14,617/-, a sum of Rs. 8,07,834/- is required to be refunded since a sum of Rs. 6,06,166/- has been released and that the said amount could not be released because the DRDA/DC, Tamenglong had not deposited the same while handing over the PMGSY works physically to the MSRRDA. It is further stated that despite the Chief Engineer (MSRRDA)'s letter dated 23-11-2007 being addressed to the DC, Tamenglong followed by another letter dated 04-06-2008, neither the security deposit was refunded to the petitioner nor was the information sought for furnished by the DC, Tamenglong and that the said amount of Rs. 14,14,716/- which pertained to DRDA/DC, is still lying with them. 14,14,716/- which pertained to DRDA/DC, is still lying with them. It may be noted that even after receipt of notice from this court, the respondent No. 3 did not furnish instruction, as is evident from the order dated 02-01-2009 passed by this court, to the Government advocate in regard to the allegation made by the respondents No. 2 & 5 that the security deposit was not handed over to them by the DC, Tamenglong along with the PMGSY works. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 was directed to be present in court 26-11-2010 when this court was pleased to grant time for filing counter which he did so on 21-12-2010 wherein it is stated that when the PMGSY work was transferred to MSRRDA on/around 02-12-2005, unspent balance amount available with the DRDA had also been transferred to MSRRDA and therefore, it is for the MSRRDA to refund the said amount to the petitioner depending upon the maintenance work. 6. From these two affidavits, it is evident that certain amount is required to be refunded to the petitioner after the exact amount is calculated depending upon the maintenance work done by the petitioner upto 24-02-2011. Which of these authorities will have to refund the security deposit to the petitioner is not the subject matter in issue in the present petition. It is for these two authorities to decide which one would refund the security deposit and what amount. It is amazing to note that these two authorities are the subordinates of the respondent No. 1 who has remained as a mute spectator and has not filed even its affidavit, as if it is not concerned with the subject matter in issue. Keeping in view the tussle between the two authorities, the respondent No. 1 ought to have interfered with and resolved the problem which it failed to do so. The callous attitude being shown by the respondents in the matter has resulted in the denial of the petitioner's right to utilize the money and he could have used it for his livelihood, had it been refunded in time. The respondents being the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, are expected to act fairly and reasonably. This court is of the view that non release of the security deposit to the petitioner is highly arbitrary and unreasonable which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. The respondents being the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, are expected to act fairly and reasonably. This court is of the view that non release of the security deposit to the petitioner is highly arbitrary and unreasonable which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed with the direction that the respondents and in particular, respondent No. 1 shall work out the amount to be refunded and release the same thereafter to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to cost. ___