1 2025:CGHC:4660-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3583 of 2022 Mohd. Hanif Ansari S/o Late Musafir Ansari, Aged About 57 Years R/o Ring Road, Nawagarh, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. Mobile No. 8839601916 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Municipal Corporation Korba Chhattisgarh Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Head Office Saket Bhawan, ITI Chowk, Korba Chhattisgarh. Pin 495677. 2 - Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation, Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Zone Deputy Incharge, T.P. Nagar Zone, Municipal Corporation Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.28 14:45:45 +0530 2 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs :- “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the letter of petitioner dated 25/7/2022 (Annexure P-11) within stipulated period in accordance with and principles of natural justice. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.49.00 lacs (Forty nine lacs) only to the petitioner for the loss, towards the cost of non- supply/missing scrap items and short supply from the available items (as per Annexure P-11) with 18% interest within stipulated time. 10.3 That, any other reliefs which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent / Municipal Corporation invited tenders for purchasing unclaimed scrap/junk (vehicles). Being the highest bidder, petitioner's offer was accepted by the Corporation and he was asked to deposit the amount for lot Nos.2 and 3. On 18/10/2021, at the time of depositing the amount, petitioner alongwith the Corporation Staff visited the spots to match the scrap materials according to the auction, but the same was not matched, hence the petitioner showed his inability to deposit the amount and requested the 3 Corporation to provide him the material according to the auction list or cancel the auction and refund the earnest money. Actually, some unclaimed scrap/vehicles were got stolen, therefore the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 23/10/2021 directed the Outpost CSEB for registration of FIR, according to which 6 items of lot No.3 were missing/less than the auctioned material. However on 27/10/2021, petitioner deposited Rs.24,88,180/- and obtained scraped materials of lot No.3 except the missing items. On receiving short pick-up of scrap on 21/12/2021 again written letter to the Commissioner. When the Respondents did nothing then on 13/4/2022, 29/5/2022 and lastly on 25/7/2022 petitioner submitted letters giving the list of missing vehicles. As per petitioner, at present the cost of the above missing unclaimed vehicles/junk is appxo. Rs 23.40 lakh. 4. He further submitted that apart from the above, the petitioner also claimed that even after showing the availability of material as on 18/10/2021, he did not get some vehicles according to the tender list and some vehicles were found incomplete, the number of such vehicles is also about eight (08), which have not been provided by the Corporation till now, which also currently costs around Rs. 25 lakh. Hence, the petitioner requested the Commissioner to compensate for the loss of about 49 lakhs due to non-supply of material as per the tender list of lot No.3. Unfortunately even after receipt of the above letter/s, the respondent No.1 has not paid any heed. In this way, the petitioner is not only suffering financial and 4 business loss of Rs.49.00 lacs (Forty Nine lacs), but he is facing mental and physical problems also and he has to come again and again from Ambikapur to Korba for recovery of the same, but the respondent No. 1 Commissioner is not paying any heed. Thus, the respondent Corporation itself has made liable and is solely liable to pay the petitioner Rs.49.00 lacs with 18% interest for the loss incurred. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondents / Municipal Corporation opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that as per the petitioner himself on 18/10/2021, at the time of depositing the amount, petitioner alongwith the Corporation Staff visited the spots to match the scrap materials according to the auction, but the same was not matched, hence the petitioner showed his inability to deposit the amount and requested the Corporation to provide him the material according to the auction list or cancel the auction and refund the earnest money. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 23/10/2021 directed the Outpost CSEB for registration of FIR, according to which 6 items of lot No.3 were missing/less than the auctioned material. However, knowing the aforesaid facts about missing of the 6 items of lot No.3, on 27/10/2021, petitioner deposited Rs.24,88,180/- and obtained scraped materials of lot No.3 except the missing items. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the petitioner has only deposited Rs. 24,88,180/- and claiming Rs. 49,00,000/- is unjust. 5 6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the present petition and materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the prayers and pleadings made in the instant petition and the rivals submissions made hereinabove, it transpires that there is disputed question of claiming an amount with interest, which requires to be agitated by adducing evidence, which cannot be done in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It can be very well agitated before the competent Civil Court. Hence, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present matter. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse of law before appropriate forum. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra