A person is free to file his representation regarding the claim of excess pyment made by him

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP No.7335 of 2011-I.

Decided on: 15th June, 2012.

BMG Agro Tech. and Marketing Private Ltd., BMC House, Rajgarh

Road Solan, through its Managing Director Sh. Vijay Singh Thakur s/o

Sh. Umed Singh Thakur.

Petitioner.

Versus

1. Union of India through its Secretary (Defence), New Delhi.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Subathu, Distt.

Solan, H.P.

3. The President, Cantonment Board Subathu, Distt. Solan, H.P.

Respondents.

_________________________________________________________________

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral)

The petitioner has approached this Court with certain grievances with regard to the amount payable to the second/third respondent. In view of the intervening developments, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, prays for an opportunity to file appropriate representation since according to the petitioner, excess payment has been made and the same is to be refunded. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submits that amounts are still due from the petitioner, however, it will be open for the petitioner to file appropriate representation before the third respondent, in which case the third respondent will get an opportunity to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

2. Though the case has chequered history, in view of the apology openly tendered by Shri Vijay Singh Thakur and members of his family as well, the Court reluctantly refrains from making any further observation in that regard since the payments have already been made to the third respondent.

3. The writ petition is hence disposed of as follows:

4. In the event of the petitioner filing appropriate representation before the third respondent with regard to his claim for refund, the same shall be considered by the third respondent, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken in the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation.

5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.

Dasti copy.

(Justice Kurian Joseph),

Chief Justice

15th June, 2012.

(tr)

(Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary),

Judge