Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 20th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 21169 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
M/S KESHAV KANSHKAR A CLASS ELECTRICAL
CONTRACTOR THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
KESHAV KANSHKAR S/O LATE SHRI GOVIND
PRASAD KANSHKAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WORKING AS
PROPRIETOR
NEAR
SNYAL
SCHOOL
DEVDARA
MANDLA
DISTRICT
MANDLA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SOURABH SUNDER, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
MADHYA PRADESH POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITRAN CO. LTD., THROUGH THE MANAGING
D I R ECTOR SHAKTI
BAHAWAN
RAMPUR
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MADHYA
PRADESH POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN
CO. LTD. DISTRICT MANDLA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PIYUSH BHATNAGAR, PANEL LAWYER FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner an Electrical Contractor has filed this writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India claiming issuance of writ in the nature of
1
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2022.09.23 19:50:36 IST
SAN
Signature Not Verified
mandamus directing the respondents especially respondent No.3 to release the
payment of the petitioner for the work carried out by the petitioner under
'Sobhagya Yojna Scheme' under which he had carried out work of supply of
material, survey, installation, testing and commissioning of 11 KV line, 11/4 KV
distribution transformers and LT line for un-electrified household in terms of the
NIT dated 23.10.2018.
It is submitted that as per Clause 6 of the NIT defect liability period was
12 months from the date of taking over/completion of facilities or any part
thereof in case of 11 KV line and LT line and 24 months for distribution
transformers but instead of making payment respondents have issued recovery
notice dated 13.12.2021 beyond the period of defect liability.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through order
dated 22.12.2021 passed in W.P. No.28386/2021 (Annexure P-4) in which as an
interim measure, the effect and operation of the order dated13.12.2021
(Annexure P-1) was stayed.
It is also submitted that under similar facts and circumstances a
Coordinate Bench has issued notices in W.P. No.20515/2022 and W.P.
No.20024/2022. Placing reliance on the order of Hon'ble Division Bench in
W.A. No.880/2022 where Hon'ble Division Bench has held that on the ground
of parity, the appellant too would be entitled to a similar interim relief. When it is
noted even by the learned Singh Judge that there have been four cases in which
interim relief has been granted, necessarily the appellant would also be entitled
to the same. To deny him the interim relief only because of the fact that the
matter requires to be heard finally in our prima facie view may not be
appropriate.
Placing reliance on this judgment it is submitted that since Coordinate
2
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2022.09.23 19:50:36 IST
SAN
Signature Not Verified
Bench has issued notices in two cases petitioner is entitled to issuance of notice
in the present case as a matter of right.
'Precedent', refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for
deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar issues.
'Precedent', is incorporated into the doctrine of 'stare decisis', and requires
courts to apply the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts.
'Judicial precedent', is the source of law where past decisions create law
for Judges to refer back to for guidance in future cases. Meaning of doctrine of
"stare decisis" to "stand by decided matters".
Thus, I am not in a position to agree that merely issuance of a notice by a
Coordinate Bench, under which provision of law, can be considered to be a
binding precedent as it does not lay down any proposition of law to be
foll
