Dinesh Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Held

The Court, considering the facts and circumstances and without delving into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition with the consent of the parties. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent no. 3, the District Development Officer, Kaushambi, within two weeks from the date of the order, raising all his grievances. Upon receipt of this fresh representation along with a certified copy of the order, respondent no. 3 was directed to decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within two months thereafter. The Court did not decide the substantive claim for payment of Rs. 1,73,948/=, nor did it examine the validity of the GST invoices or other supporting documents. The operative direction was to ensure a timely and reasoned decision by the concerned authority.

Facts

The petitioner, Dinesh Singh, a Village Development Officer, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 to pay him Rs. 1,73,948/=. This amount comprises expenses for medical treatment (Rs. 80,000/=), other expenses supported by tax invoices and GST invoices (Rs. 66,093.00), and a sum of Rs. 27,855/=. The petitioner's grievance was that respondent no. 3, the District Development Officer, Kaushambi, had neither decided his representations nor paid his medical bills. The Standing Counsel for the respondents acknowledged that keeping the petition pending would serve no purpose and suggested issuing directions to respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioner's grievance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 to pay the petitioner Rs. 1,73,948/= towards medical and other expenses, considering the petitioner's representations and the lack of decision by respondent no. 3. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he had submitted vouchers, tax invoices, GST invoices, and other relevant documents totaling Rs. 1,73,948/= for reimbursement of medical and other expenses. He contended that respondent no. 3 had failed to take any decision on his representations and had not released the payment, causing him financial hardship. The petitioner sought a direction for payment. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. They suggested that an appropriate direction could be issued to respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioner's grievance.