The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
i. Call for records relating to Exhibits P1 to P3.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondents to conduct re-measurement of the works done in terms of Ext.P1 by the petitioner and to pay him the balance amount which may come in dues, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondent No.1 to serve a copy of the order which is alleged to be passed in Ext.P3 to the petitioner, in a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
iv. Pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and necessary in the interests of justice.
W.P.(C) No. 9317/2014
-2-
2. The petitioner submits that he was a contractor who had undertaken the construction of Service Delivery Building attached to Government U.P. School. The contract was executed somewhere in December 2005 and the work, even according to the petitioner, was completed in 2006. According to him, proper measurement was not done and certain amount was recovered from him as penalty. He approached the Ombudsman who had passed Ext.P2 Order directing re-measurement of the building and to consider whether the penalty could be waived. Ext.P3 is the Order passed by the Ombudsman on 23.10.2013 indicating that the District Panchayat has taken a decision in the matter and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision he has to take appropriate remedial action.
3. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent, inter alia, stating that the final measurement was done on 28.04.2007 and final bill was prepared for a sum of Rs.4,57,814/-. On account of the delay in completing the
W.P.(C) No. 9317/2014
-3-
work the 1st respondent has imposed a fine of Rs.38,690/- to the petitioner. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Ombudsman a decision has been taken by the District Panchayat reducing the penalty by an amount of Rs.25,000/-.
4. Having regard to the nature of reliefs sought for by the petitioner and the communication of the decisions as referred to in Ext.P3, I do not think that anything survives in this matter. The case of the petitioner is with reference to a contract which had been over as early in 2007. Since the respondent has clearly indicated that they have measured the property and final bill has been prepared, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for.
Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE jjj