[2026:RJ-JD:12750]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 682/2014 M/s Pushalal Choudhary through its proprietor Pushalal Chudharya S/o Mangilal Choudhary aged about 36 years, Old RTO Road, Gandhi Nagar, Bhilwara ----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Disaster Management & Relief Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur

2. Executive Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Zone Bhilwara

3. District Collector, Bhilwara ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Mohan Mr. Sarthak Asopa For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

17/03/2026 By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the record of the case may kindly be called for and the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and;

1. by any writ, order or direction, the Respondents may kindly be directed to make a payment of Rs. 7,66,390/- to the petitioner firm along with interest @ 15% p.a.

2 Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

3. the writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout.”

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner is that he had supplied water tankers in the year 2009 in certain areas facing scarcity of water under the directions of the respondents, at the agreed rate of Rs.

68/- per litre.

3. According to the petitioner, the officials of the PHED, in various communications exchanged inter se as well as with the District Collector and the petitioner, have admitted the liability for payment of Rs. 7,66,390/-. However, no steps have been taken for reimbursement of the said amount, thereby causing financial loss to the petitioner without any fault on his part.

4. This Court, upon careful perusal of the record, finds that there is no document indicating that the PHED Department or the District Collector had entered into any direct agreement/contract with the petitioner for supply of water. On the contrary, the material available on record indicates that although the petitioner supplied water in areas facing shortage/scarcity, the payment for the same was to be made by certain industrial units. The communication dated 17.02.2011 sent by the Executive Officer, PHED, to the office of the District Collector (Relief), Bhilwara, indicates that out of the total bills raised by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 32,35,440/-, the payable amount was determined to be Rs. 31,84,440/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 24,18,850/- has already been paid to the petitioner by various industrial units. However, an amount of Rs. 7,66,390/- remains due, which is payable by the said industrial units.

5. The petitioner, in the entire writ petition, has not controverted the contents of the communication dated 17.02.2011. In these circumstances, it is difficult for this Court to accept the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to claim the said amount of Rs. 7,66,390/- from the respondents, i.e., the PHED Department and the District Collector. As noted above, no agreement/contract between the petitioner and the answering respondents is available on record to establish their liability. Furthermore, no industrial unit, which has either made payment to the petitioner or against which payment is allegedly due, has been impleaded as a party respondent. Thus, the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact requiring detailed evidence and also suffers from non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. 6. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

7. Stay petition and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

90-divya/-