M/S Soni And Brothers vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with the consent of the parties, without commenting on the merits of the case. Respondent No. 5 was directed to consider and decide the legal notice dated 27.09.2024 by passing a reasoned and speaking order. This decision was to be made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties, if necessary, within a period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Court further stipulated that if any amount was found due and payable to the petitioner upon consideration of the legal notice, it should be disbursed within a further period of two months. In the event of non-payment within the stipulated period, the dues would be released along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition until disbursement, and subject to an additional payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the Poor Patient Welfare Fund of PGIMER, Chandigarh. This additional financial liability was to be subject to recovery from the erring official.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Soni and Brothers, sought a direction from the Punjab and Haryana High Court to release an amount of Rs. 27,70,805/- along with GST and interest, as per an office order dated 01.02.2023. The petitioner had previously served a legal notice dated 27.09.2024 to the respondents, but no action was taken, and the outstanding dues remained unpaid. The petitioner's counsel submitted that they would be satisfied if Respondent No. 5, the Returning Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalka, Haryana, was directed to consider and decide the legal notice within a specified timeframe by passing a speaking order. The respondents, through the Additional Advocate General, accepted notice and had no objection to the petitioner's request.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 5 should be directed to consider and decide the legal notice dated 27.09.2024 within a time-bound manner, as per the petitioner's prayer? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they had served a legal notice dated 27.09.2024 regarding their grievance for the release of Rs. 27,70,805/- along with GST and interest, but the respondents had neither paid the outstanding dues nor taken any action on the notice. Therefore, the petitioner sought a direction for Respondent No. 5 to consider and decide the legal notice by passing a speaking order in a time-bound manner. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepted notice and stated they had no objection to the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.