Rajesh Kumar Nain v. Sub Divisional Engineer

o o 2023:PHHC:049810o ooooooINoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARHoo o o o o o o o o oooooo o o o o o o o o o oooCWP-26301-2017o ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooJUDGEMENToRESERVEDoONooo:15.03.2023o oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooJUDGEMENToPRONOUNCEDoON:oo21.03.2023oooooo o RAJESHoKUMARoNAINoo o o o o o .......Petitioneroo o o o o o o o VERSUSo o SUBoDIVISIONALoENGINEERo oo o o ooooooo.......Respondento o o CORAMo:oHON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoVINODoS.oBHARDWAJo o o o o o *****o o Present:-oo Mr.oRajoKapooroMalik,oAdvocateoo o o forotheopetitioner.o o o o Mr.oPankajoMulwani,oDAG,oHaryanao o o forotheorespondent.oo o o oo o o o o *****oo VINODoS.oBHARDWAJ,oJ.oo o o o TheoinstantopetitionohasobeenofiledounderoArticleso226/227oofotheo Constitutiono ofo Indiao foro seekingo quashingo ofo Memoo No.o 258o datedo

24.04.2015o(AnnexureoP-3)owherebyonoticeoforodepositingoRs.o1.5olacoagainsto OpticaloFibreoCableodamageoofoEllenabad-Karmshanaohasobeenoissuedobyotheo respondent-Subo Divisionalo Engineero (Publico Healtho Engineering),o Subo DivisionoNo.2,oEllenabad,oDistrictoSirsa,oagainstotheopetitioneroonotheobasisoofo anoawardodatedo09.04.2015o(AnnexureoP-4)opassedobyotheoPermanentoLoko Adalato(PublicoUtilityoServices),oSirsaoinocaseobearingoNo.o2839oofo2014o titledo"BharatoSancharoNigamoLimited,oSirsaoversusoSuboDivisionaloEngineero (PublicoHealthoEngg.)oSuboDivisionoNo.2,oEllenabad,oDistrictoSirsa.oo o CWP-26301-2017oo o o o o o o o -2-o o

2.o o TheopetitionerowhooisoanoauthorizedoCiviloContractororegisteredo withotheorespondent-departmentowasoallottedotheoworkoofoAugmentationoofo SewerageoSchemeoinoEllenabadoTowno,oDistrictoSirsaovideoendorsementoNo.o 3363-68o datedo 19.05.2014.o Ito iso claimedo thato theo aforesaido worko waso undertakeno byo theo petitionero ando completedo ino April,o 2015o withouto anyo complainto againsto theo dueo executiono thereof.o Ano agreemento waso alsoo executedo betweeno theo petitionero ando theo respondent-department.o Clauseooooooooooooo No.o26othereoforeadsoasounder:oo "26:-oAnyodamageoofoexistingosewer/waterosupply/telephoneo lineo willo beo theo responsibilitieso ofo contractoro too makeo ino goodoconditionowithoutoanyoextraopayment."o o

3.o o Itoisoaverredothatotheopetitionerohadoexecuted/completedotheoworko withino prescribedo timeo frameo ando theo sameo waso alsoo dulyo inspectedo byo theo respondent-departmento whereupono ito waso foundo too beo executedo aso pero theo standardso ando theo specificationso prescribedo byo theo respondent-authorities.o However,otheopetitionerowasosurprisedoonoreceiptoofoaoMemooNo.o258odatedo

24.04.2015owherebyotheorespondent-departmentoaskedotheopetitionerotoodeposito aosumoofoRs.o1.5olacsoagainstotheoclaimoofoBSNLoforoOpticaloFibreoCableo(OFC)o DamageoonoEllenabad-KarmshanaorouteonearoBhambhuoPetroloPump,oNoharo Road,oEllenabad.oAfterogoingothroughotheoabovesaidonotice,otheopetitionero becameo awareo thato theo BSNLo hado filedo ao caseo againsto theo respondent-departmentobeforeotheoPermanentoLokoAdalatounderoSectiono22o(C)oofotheo LegaloServicesoAuthoritiesoAct,o1987oandoanoawardohadobeenopassedoagainsto theo respondent-department.o Theo petitionero claimso thato theo respondent-departmentoneveroissuedoanyointimationotoohimoaboutotheoclaimoraisedobyotheo respondent-BSNLoorotheopendencyoofotheocaseobeforeotheoPermanentoLoko o CWP-26301-2017oo o o o o o o o -3-o o Adalato(PublicoUtilityoServices),oSirsaoandoasosuchoheowasonotoliableoforotheo saidoloss.ooHeothusodeniedotheorightooforespondentsotoowith-holdopayment.oAo legalo noticeo foro seekingo releaseo ofo theo withheldo amounto waso sento byo theo petitionero too theo respondent-departmento ono 27.07.2017.o Theo respondento deniedoreleaseoofotheoaforesaidoamountoandoplacedorelianceoonoClauseoNo.o26o ofotheoAgreement.oTheoinstantopetitionowasothereafterofiledobyotheopetitioner.o

4.o o Ao writteno statemento ono behalfo ofo respondent-departmento throughoJaibiroSingh,oSuboDivisionaloEngineero(PublicoHealthoEngineering)o SuboDivisionoNo.2oEllenabad,oDistrictoSirsaowasofiledotakingoaospecificostandoo thatotheopetitionerohadobeenoawardedoworkoofoAugmentationoofoSewerageo SchemeoinoEllenabad,oDistrictoSirsaounderoESPoandolayingoofoSWPopipesosizeo 200omm,o300ommodiameters,ociviloconstructionoofoMHoChambersoofovariouso sizeo ando allo othero o contingento works.o Ano emanatingo clauseo waso dulyo incorporatedoinotheoAgreementoNo.o264oofo2014oenteredowithotheopetitionero asoperowhichotheopetitioner-contractorowouldobeoresponsibleoforoanyodamageo tooanyoexistingoSewer/waterosupply/telephoneolinesoduringotheoexecutionoofo theoworksoandowithoutoanyopayment.ooItowasoaverredothatotheopetitionerodido nototakeocareoofoexistingotelephoneolineoofoBharatoSancharoNigamoLimitedo andoresultantlyodamagedotheoOpticaloFibreoCableoofoBSNL.oTheorespondent-BSNLofiledoforotheoaforesaidoclaimobeforeotheoPermanentoLokoAdalato(Publico UtilityoServices),oSirsaowhichowasodecidedoinofavouroofotheoBSNLoandotheo respondent-departmentowasomadeoliableotoopayotheoaforesaidoamountoofoRs.o

1.50o lacs.o Accordingly,o ino termso ofo theo conditionso incorporatedo ino theo agreement,o theo respondent-departmento waso entitledo too recovero theo saido amountofromotheopetitioner.oTheoamountoinoquestionohavingobeenodepositedo o CWP-26301-2017oo o o o o o o o -4-o o byotheorespondent-departmentovideoreceiptodatedo01.05.2015,otheoactionoofo theorespondentoinoretainingotheosaidomoneyofromotheoamountsodueotootheo petitionerocannotobeoheldotoobeobadooroinoviolationoofotheoanyotermsoando conditionsoofotheocontractoexecutedobetweenotheoparties.oItowasospecificallyo contendedobyotheorespondentodepartmentothatotheopetitionerowasoawareoofotheo proceedingso filedo byo BSNLo fromo theo veryo beginningo ando alsoo abouto dismissaloofotheoapplicationobyotheoPermanentoLokoAdalato(PublicoUtilityo Services),oSirsaoforoimpleadingohim.oEvenothereafter,ocommunicationoofotheo awardowasoalsoosentotoohimo&oyetoheochoseotoostayoquietoforo02oyears.ooo

5.o o Evenothoughotheoaforesaidowrittenostatementohadobeenofiledobyoo theorespondent-departmentoono19.04.2018,ohowever,onoorejoinder/replicationo controvertingotheostandoofotheorespondentsowasofiledobyotheopetitionerodespiteo lapseoofonearlyo05oyears.o

6.o o Counselo foro theo petitionero haso submittedo thato theo awardo ino questiono hado beeno passedo withouto impleadingo theo petitionero ando thato theo respondent-departmentoneveroinformedotheopetitioneroaboutotheopendencyoofo aforesaido claimo and/oro theo applicationo beforeo theo Permanento Loko Adalato (PublicoUtilityoServices),oSirsa.oConsequently,oheocannotobeoheldoliableoforo anyoawardopassedoagainstohim.ooHeofurtherocontendsothatotheopetitionerohado notocausedoanyodamageotootheoOpticaloFibreoCableoofotheoBSNLoandothatoheo cannotobeoheldoliableoonoaccountoofoanyodamageocausedobyoanyothirdoparty.oo InotheoabsenceoofoestablishingothatotheodamageotootheoOpticaloFibreoCableowaso asoaoresultoofotheoworkoundertakenobyotheopetitioner,orecoveryoofotheodueso fromotheopetitioneroisoillofounded.oTheoamountoinoquestionothusodeservesotoobeo

o

1.o o Pero $ontra"o earnedo $o'nse o %oro t&eo respondent-Stateo &aso s'-5ittedo t&ato t&eo $ ai5o %oro da5a3eo d'rin3o t&eo ti5eo o%o (or!o &aso -eeno a(ardedo-*ot&eoPer5anentoLo!oAda ato;P'- i$oUti it*oSer#i$es>"oSirsaoEot&eo petitionero&asonoto-eenoa-eotooesta-is&ot&atot&eoda5a3eotoot&eoOpti$a o?i-reo 2a-eo &ado noo $onne$tiono (it&o t&eo (or!o 'nderta!eno -*o t&eo petitioner.oo ?'rt&er"ot&ereoisonot&in3oonore$ordotoos'-stantiateot&atot&eoda5a3eotoot&eo Opti$a o?i-reo2a-eo&adonotota!enop a$eoonot&eoro'teo(&ereot&eo(or!o&ado -eeno 'nderta!eno -*o t&eo petitioner.o o ?'rt&er"o t&eo a(ardo ino 4'estiono (aso passedo-*oPer5anentoLo!oAda ato;P'- i$oUti it*oSer#i$es>"oSirsao(&ereinoao spe$i%i$o p eao &ado -eeno raisedo -*o t&eo respondent-depart5ento t&ato t&eo petitionero &ereino (aso t&eo 2ontra$toro ando (aso ia-eo too o%%-seto a o $ ai5stida5a3eso t&ato &a#eo -eeno s'%%eredo -*o t&eo respondento d'eo too an*o da5a3eotoot&eoSe(er0P'- i$o)ea t&0BSNLoLines.o,&eore e#antoe<tra$too%ot&eo a(ardore%errin3otoot&eosaidoo-je$tionsoraisedo-*ot&eorespondentsoreadsot&'s:o "2. The respondent appeared and filed the written reply of the petition contesting the same on the grounds that the petitioner has no cause of action and Locus -Standi to file the petition; that the petition is bad for non-joinder of collector, Sirsa, Executive Engineer of PWD (Public Health) and Contractor Sh. Rajesh Kumar Nain; that the petitioner is estopped from filling the present petition by his own act and conduct because before starting the work, a notice bearing No. 418 dated 20.06.2014 was issued by the respondent to the petitioner for giving demarcation but the petitioner did not take any action on that notice nor deputed any persons to give the alignment of the optical fibre cable; that the petition is not maintainable in the present form as the subject matter of this petition does not fall within the preview of public utility services; that this Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition; that the petitioner has concealed the true

o and material facts; that the respondent -Department in formed the petitioner for deputing any person during the excavation of work for giving the alignment but the petitioner-Department failed to submit the alignment map or depute any person at the site; that the petition is false and frivolous; that the cable laid by BSNL was not as per specification as the alignment was not correct and the depth and distance was not proper. no protection over the cable was provided, therefore, BSNL is personally responsible for the loss; that no damage was caused to telephone cable by the respondent ; that the work of repairing water pipe line is also a matter of public utility and it could not be stopped; that the demand notice served by the petitioner to the respondent was devoid of merit, therefore, the same was ignored; that the work of repairing water pipe line is still carried out within the territory of opposite Bhambhu Petrol Pump, Nohar Road, Ellenabad, District Sirsa but the petitioner has not supplied the route map of cables to the respondent with these averments, the respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the petition."

¶8The contention of the respondent-department was declined by the Per5anentoLo!oAda ato;P'- i$oUti it*oSer#i$es>"oSirsaoandoito(asospe$i%i$a *o o-ser#edo t&ato t&eo petitionero $ontra$toro (or!edo 'ndero t&eo respondento depart5ent.o,&eoa3ree5ent"o$op*o(&ereo%o&ado-eenop a$edoonore$ordoo%ot&eo Per5anentoLo!oAda ato;P'- i$oUti it*oSer#i$es>"oSirsaodidonotoinoan*o5annero -indot&eopetitionerot&ereinoi.eooBSNL.ooLi-ert*o(aso3rantedotoot&eorespondent-depart5entotoore$o#erooronototoore$o#erot&eoa5o'ntoo%oda5a3eso%ro5ot&eo 2ontra$toro'nderot&eoter5soando$onditionsoo%ot&eoa3ree5entoino4'estion.o,&eo re e#antoe<tra$too%ot&eoa(ardoreadsot&'s:o "7.oItoisoanoadmittedofactothatotheopetitioner-Departmentolaido undergroundo opticalo fibreo cableo foro providingo BSNLo mobile,o datao ando othero serviceso too itso userso residingo ino theo areao ofo oppositeoBhambuo etrolo ump,oNoharoroad,o!llenabadodistricto o CWP-26301-2017oo o o o o o o o -7-o o Sesa.oItoisoalsooanoadmittedofactothatotheorespondentodepartmento alsoolaidoaosewerageopipeolineoonotheosameositeotooprovideowatero facilityo too theo inhabitantso ofo thato area.o Theo respondento haso pleadedo thato theo petitionero waso requiredo video letter,o copyo ofo whichoisoEx.oR-3,otoosupplyotheositeoplanoofolaidoopticalofibreo cableoinothatoareaoandotoodeputeosomeopersonotoogiveoalignmento ofofibreocableobutotheopetitionero-Departmentodidonotoprovideotheo siteo plano ando dido noto deputeo anyo person.o Theo petitionero haso deniedotheoreceiptoofolatter,ocopyoofowhichoisoEx.oR-3.oTherefore,o itowasoforotheorespondentodepartmentotooproveotheoissuanceoofo letter,o copyo ofo whicho iso Ex.R-3o buto respondento haso failedo too proveothisofact.oRespondentohasosimplyoplacedoonorecordoEx.R-3o Whetherothisoletterowasoactuallyodeliveredoinotheoofficeoofotheo petitioneroisonotoprovedoonotheofile.oThereoisonoosignatureoofoanyo officialooroofficeroofotheopetitioner-odepartmentoonoEx.oR-3oino tokenoofoitsoreceipt.oTherefore,oitocannotobeoheldothatothisolettero wasoactuallyodeliveredotootheopetitioner.oOtherwiseoalso,oEx.oR-2o goesotooshowothatotheoworkoofolayingotheosewerageopipeolineowaso allottedobyotheorespondento-DepartmentotooRajeshoKumaroNain,o contractoro ono 19.05.2014.o Therefore,o theo respondento departmento waso supposedo too intimateo theo petitionero -o departmentowelloinotimeoaboutotheoexecutionoofowork.oButotheo respondentodepartmentoremainedosilentotillo20.06.2014oandoono thatodateoitoallegedlyoissuedoletter,ocopyoofowhichoisoEx.R-3oando themostartedotheoworkoono21.06.2014owithoutowaitingotheoreplyo ofotheopetitioneroandowithoutogivingoremainderotootheopetitioner,o thusofromotheoconductoofotheorespondent-department,oitostandso provedothatoletteroEx.R-3owasonotoissuedoono20.6.2014oandoito wasocreatedolateroonowhenotheyocameotooknowothatotheoopticalo fibreo cableo ofo theo petitioner-departmento haso beeno damagedo whileo doingo theo o work.o Therefore,o Ex.R-3o doeso noto helpo theo o CWP-26301-2017oo o o o o o o o -8-o o

8.o Theo respondento haso triedo too avoido itso liabilityo too payo theo compensationo ono theo groundo thato theo worko ino questiono waso carriedooutobyoRajeshoKumaroNain,ocontractoroandoasoperotheo termsoandoconditionsoofocontractoagreement,ocopyoofowhichoiso Ex.R-2,otheopetitionerocanoclaimotheodamagesofromohim.oThiso pleaoofotheorespondentoalsoodoesonotocarryoanyoweight.oRajesho Kumaro Naino Contractoro workedo undero theo respondento department.oAgreement,ocopyoofowhichoisoEx.oR-2owasoexecutedo betweeno Rajesho Kumaro Naino contractoro ando respondento department.oTheotermsoandoconditionsoofothisoagreementoareotoo beo followedo byo Rajesho Kumaro Naino ando theo respondento department.oTheotermsoandoconditionsoofothisoagreementoareonoto bindingoonotheopetitioneroinoanyomanner.oTheodamageoofotheo opticalofibreoofotheopetitioner-departmentoisotoobeomadeogoodobyo theorespondentodepartment.oRespondentodepartmentoisoatolibertyo toorecoverooronotorecoverotheoamountoofodamagesofromoRajesho KumarocontractoroinoviewoofotheotermsoandoconditionsoofoEx.oR-

2.o

9.o Accordingo too theo versiono ofo theo petitioner,o whileo layingo sewerageopipeoline,otheorespondentodepartmentocausedodamageo tooitsoopticalofibreocableoatosomeoplacesoandocausedomonetaryo lossoofoRs.o1,50,000/-.oTheopetitionero-departmentoservedonotice,o copyo ofo whicho iso Ex.o P-2o too theo respondento -Departmento ono

27.06.2014.oTheorespondentohasonotodeniedotheoreceiptoofothiso notice.o Ino parao no.3o ofo theo petitioner,o theo petitionero haso mentionedotheocompleteoparticularsoofonotice,ocopyoofowhichoiso Ex.R-2o ando haso clearlyo pleadedo thato ito waso servedo too theo respondentoono27.6.2014.owhileogivingotheoreplyoofoavermentsoofo paraoNo.3o(onomerit),oinoitsoreplyotheorespondentodepartmentodido notoreplyotheseocategoricaloavermentsoofotheopetitioner.oThere,oito amountso thato theo respondent-departmento haso admittedo theo correctnessoofoavermentsoofoparaoNo.3oofotheopetitionoinototoando thusobeingoso,oweohaveonoohesitationotooholdothatonotice,ocoyoofo o CWP-26301-2017oo o o o o o o o -9-o o whicho iso Ex.o P-2o waso dulyo servedo byo theo petitionero too theo respondent.oTherefore,oitowasotheodutyoofotheorespondentotooreplyo theonoticeobutoitofailedotooreplyotheosameoandothrewoitoinotheodust-binoandoifotheorespondentoignoredotheonotice,othenorespondento musto beo readyo too faceo theo consequenceso ofo itso acto also.o Therefore,oitostandsoprovedothatotheoopticalofibreocableoofotheo petitioner-departmento waso damagedo byo theo respondento departmento aso allegedo byo theo petitioner.o Theo respondento Departmentohasodirectlyoavoidedoitsoliabilityotoopayotheodamageo byo sayingo thato theo opticalo fibreo cableo waso noto laido byo theo petitioner-Departmentoinotheoproperomanner.oThisostandoofotheo respondent-departmentoisoalsooliableotoobeoignoredobecauseoifo theopetitionerodepartmentodidonotolayotheoopticalofibreocableoino propero manner,o ito doeso noto meano thato theo respondento departmento haso everyo righto too damageo theo same.o Otherwiseo also,o theo respondento departmento haso noto adducedo anyo satisfactoryoevidenceotooproveothatotheopetitionero-departmento didonotofollowotheonormsoofolayingotheoundergroundoopticalofibreo cable.oTherefore,oweohaveonoohesitationotooholdothatotheodamageo ofocableoownedobyotheopetitioner-departmentoisoprovedoonotheo recordo ando theo respondento departmento iso liableo too makeo theo lossesoofotheopetitionerodepartmentogood.o

10.oSoofaroasotheolegaloobjectionotakenobyotheorespondentsoareo concerned,otheosameoareovague,ounnecessaryoandoliableotoobeo ignored.oinotheogivenocircumstancesoofotheocaseotheopetitionero hasotheocauseoofoactionoandolocus-standiotoofileotheopetitionero becauseo botho theo departmento pertainingo too theo Publico utilityo servicesoexecutedoworkotooprovideopublicoutilityoservicesotootheo publico ando duringo thiso processo theo respondento departmento causedotheolossotoootheocableoofotheopetitioner-departmentoando disturbedo theo publico utilityo services.o Theo mattero iso ato pre-litigativeo stageo ando elemento ofo amicableo settlemento iso there.o Beforeo comingotoothiso Adalat,o theo petitioneroservedo noticeotoo o CWP-26301-2017oo o o o o o o o -10-o o makeo itso losseso goodo buto theo respondento departmento ignoredo thatonoticeoandocompelledotheopetitionerotooknockotheodooroofo lawomaintainingoagency.oTheopetitionerohasonotoconcealedoanyo materialoandotrueofactoinoanyomanner,otherefore,otheopetitionoiso veryomuchomaintainableoinotheopresentoform."o

9.o o Byoreferringotootheoabove,ocounseloforotheopetitionerocontendsothato theo Permanento Loko Adalato (Publico Utilityo Services),o Sirsao gaveo specifico findingothatotheodamagesotootheoOpticaloFibreoCableohadobeenocausedowhileo undertakingotheoaforesaidoworkoandothatotheosaidofindingohavingonotobeeno dispelled,o theo petitionero cannoto claimo immunityo fromo compensatingo theo respondent-departmentoforotheolossosustainedobyothem.oo

10.o o Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloappearingoforotheorespectiveopartieso andohaveogoneothroughotheodocumentsoavailableoonorecord.ooo

11.o o Theo soleoquestiono whicho comeso upo foro considerationoforo thiso CourtoisoasotoowhetherotheorespondentowasoentitledotoowithholdotheosumoofoRs.o

1.50olacsofromotheodueopaymentsoofotheopetitioneroonotheobasisoofotheoawardo passedobyotheooPermanentoLokoAdalato(PublicoUtilityoServices),oSirsa.o

12.o o Perusalo ofo theo Clauseo 26o ofo theo Agreemento datedo 19.05.2014o extractedoaboveoestablishesothatotheorespondent-departmentowasoentitledotoobeo indemnifiedoforoanyodamageotooexistingoSewer/WateroSupply/telephoneolineso withoutoanyoextraopayment.oItois,ohence,oentitledotoobeoheldoharmlessoagainstoanyo claimolodgedoagainstoit.o

13.o o ooooTheo petitionero haso noto challengedo theo existenceo ofo theo Agreemento oro theo clauseso thereof.o Further,o eveno thougho theo petitionero haso challengedo theo recoveryo ono theo basiso ofo theo awardo byo theo Permanento Loko Adalato (Publico Utilityo Services),o Sirsa,o however,o heo optedo noto too raiseo ao o CWP-26301-2017oo o o o o o o o -11-o o challengeotootheoawardoofotheoawardobyotheooPermanentoLokoAdalato(Publico Utilityo Services),o Sirsa.o Besides,o theo petitionero haso noto referredo too anyo materialoaboutotheolossonotobeingoasoanooutcomeoofotheoactivityoundertakenobyo himodespiteobeingofullyoawareoofotheoaward.oItoisonotoevenoaverredothatonoo worko ono theo saido routeo waso undertakeno byo himo oro thato diggingo waso undertakenobyoanyootheroperson/agencyoforoanyootherowork.oFurther,oeveno thoughotheoentireogrouseoofotheopetitioneroisothatotheorecoveryoisoinoviolationo ofoprinciplesoofoNaturaloJustice,ohowever,otheopetitionerochoseonototoofileoanyo replication/rejoinderotootheospecificoresponseofiledobyotheorespondentsotakingo theoobjectionothatotheopetitionerowasoawareoofotheoproceedingsoandorecoveryo &ostillochoseotoostayoquietoforonearlyo02oyears.oTheopleaoofonotobeingoawareo raisedobyotheopetitioneroisothusorequiredotoobeoinferredoagainstohim.oo

14.o o Hence,o theo petitionero iso undisputedlyo undero ao contractualo obligationo too holdo theo respondentso harmlesso againsto anyo loss/damageo oro claimosufferedobyoit.oFailureoofotheopetitionerotoochallengeotheoawardooroeveno tooplaceoanyodocumentotooshowohisoinnocenceoorothatotheodamageowasonotoono accountoofoanyoactivityoundertakenobyohimocoupledowithotheofactothatotheo awardowasopassedobyotheoawardobyotheooPermanentoLokoAdalato(PublicoUtilityo Services),oSirsaoforotheodamageocausedotootheoOpticaloFibreoCableoleadotooano inferenceo thato theo damageo waso causedo too theo Opticalo Fibreo duringo theo executionoofotheoworkoinoquestionoandothatotheopetitioneroisoliableotooholdotheo respondent-departmentoharmless.oo

15.o o oTheogrievanceoespousedobyotheopetitioneroisothatoheowasonevero madeoawareoofotheoclaimohavingobeenolodgedoagainstothemoandohence,oheoisonoto

o liable to indemnify the respondent-department of such loss has to be rejected for failure to controvert the specific plea in defence as well.

¶16The question which next arises is as to whether the petitioner was to be granted any opportunity of hearing before any such recovery is effected or not. The above-said principles apply where an authority carries out an adjudication or determination of an issue resulting in prejudice to a civil right of the person. The primary question which thus comes to fore is whether the recovery in question is an outcome of an adjudication or determination by the respondents or is solely a consequential act.

¶17There is no evidence on record on the basis whereof it can be alleged that the demand/recovery made by the respondents was based upon an arbitrary/discriminatory act of the employer/department. The levy of the amount was pursuant to an award passed by the Per5anentoLo!oAda ato;P'- i$o Uti it*oSer#i$es>"oSirsa.o?'rt&er"ot&eoo-je$tionsoasore3ardsotoot&eopetitionero 'nderta!in3ot&eo(or!oandoanoo-je$tiono4'aonon-joinder05is-joinderoo%ot&eo ne$essar*opart*o&asoa soo-eenod' *oraised.o,&eosaidoo-je$tiono(aso&o(e#ero t'rnedodo(no-*ot&eoPer5anentoLo!oAda ato;P'- i$oUti it*oSer#i$es>"oSirsa.o ,&eorespondent-depart5ento5iti3atedot&eo osso-*odepositin3ot&eosaidoa5o'nto (it&o'to de a*o ando $a'sin3o %'rt&ero osso too t&eo petitionero a3ainsto interest.o Re$o#er*o(aso&en$eoao5ereo$onse4'entia oa$t.ooo :7.oo o ?'rt&er"o$ a'seo./oo%ot&eoa3ree5entodoesonotostip' ateo3rantin3o o%oan*oopport'nit*oo%o&earin3o-e%oreos'$&oinde5ni%i$ation.oMoreo#er"ot&eo $ ai5o&aso-eenoraisedo-*ot&eorespondentoonot&eo-asisoo%oanoa(ardopassedo-*o t&eoPer5anentoLo!oAda ato;P'- i$oUti it*oSer#i$es>"oSirsa.o)en$e"ot&eoa$tiono o%o t&eo respondento doeso noto s'%%ero %ro5o t&eo #i$eo o%o ar-itrariness"o o CWP-26301-2017oo o o o o o o o -13-o o discriminationo oro non-applicationo ofo mind.o Theo interpretationo ofo theo petitionerothatotheorespondentocouldoseekoindemnification/ororecoveryoofotheo damageso onlyo aftero firsto carryingo outo ano independento assessmento ofo theo damageo ando aftero grantingo Showo Causeo Noticeo wouldo rathero leado too ano introductionoofoanoaltogetherouncalledoforomechanismoforoindemnificationoino theocontract.oAnyosuchosuggestiveointerpretationoisolikelyotooaddoaodetailedo procedureoforoseekingorecoveryoofotheodamagesoandoamountotooalterationsoofo theo agreement.o Whereo theo actiono ofo respondent-authoritieso iso noto pero seo illegaloorowithoutojurisdiction,otheoactoundertakenoonotheostrengthoofoanoawardo passedobyotheoPermanentoLokoAdalato(PublicoUtilityoServices),oSirsaowhichoiso akinotooaoCiviloCourtodecree,ocannotobeosaidotoobeoillegaloorounsustainableoono aomereopleaoofobeingoinoviolationoofoPrinciplesoofoNaturaloJustice.oInoanyo case,otheopleaoraisedobyotheopetitionerothatotheodamageotootheoOpticaloFibreo Cableowasonotoasoaoresultoofotheoactivityoundertakenobyohimoisoatobestoao disputedoquestionoofofact.oTheosameocannotobeodeterminedobyoHighocourtoinoao writojurisdiction.oTheopoweroofojudicialoreviewoisotootheoextentoofoexaminingo whetherotheoactionoofoStateosuffersofromoanyoviceoofoillegality;oirregularity;o arbitrariness;odisproportionately;ojudicialoimpropriety;omalice;oharshnessooro discriminationoandodoesonotositoinoreviewoofotheodecisionoinotheoabsenceoofo above.oo

19.o o Iofindothatothereoisonooillegalityooroinfirmityoinotheoactionoofotheo respondent-authoritiesoinoeffectingorecovery/retainingotheoamountoofoRs.o1.50o lacsotowardsodamagesoandoasoawardedobyotheoPermanentoLokoAdalato(Publico UtilityoServices),oSirsa.oTheopetitioneromayoifosooadvised,otakingorecourseotoo o CWP-26301-2017oo o o o o o o o -14-o o anoappropriateoremedyoforoseekingoadjudicationoofotheodisputedoquestionsoofo fact.oo o o Theopresentopetitionoisoaccordinglyodisposedoof.oo o o oo o o o o o (VINODoS.oBHARDWAJ)oo MARCHo21,o2023oo o o o o ooJUDGEo VishaloSharmao o o o Whetherospeaking/reasonedo :o Yes/Noo o o o WhetheroReportableo o :o Yes/Noo