1 2
Page of
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.423 OF 2024
Sri Ratan Mani Chakraborty.
Vs.
The Union of India and ors.
T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
Present:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate.
Ms. A. Pal, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI.
28.06.2024
Order
This present writ petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
“i) Admit the petition,
AND
ii) Issue Rule NISI upon the respondents to show cause as to why the
Writ of Mandamus or in the nature thereof shall not be issued commanding upon
the respondents to release the balance amount of the award of Rs.3816,571/-
(Thirty eight lakhs sixteen thousand five hundred seventy one) only with interest
and other statutory benefits within a definite time frame.
AND
iii) As to why the inaction and negative role of the respondents shall
not be declared arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
AND
iv) After hearing the petition the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass
order/issue Writ in the lights of the prayers made above and make the rule
absolute.
AND
v) Any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems
fit and proper may kindly be passed.”
2. Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel
assisted by Ms. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI appearing for the
respondents.
2 2
Page of
3. It is seen from the record that by way of notice dated
rd rd
23 March 2022, the 3 respondent i.e., the Arbitrator for N.H-44,
the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura has called for
hearing the matter by fixing the date of 07.04.2022 at 11.00 A.M,
and after that again on summon, the petitioner appeared for hearing
by notice dated 07.04.2022 before the respondent No-3, but, no
hearing took place and next date of hearing of the case was fixed on
19.04.2022 at 11.00. A.M. The petitioner again appeared on
19.04.2022 before respondent No.3 but no effective order has been
passed yet. It is the case of the petitioner that despite issuing
rd
notices, the 3 respondent has not decided the matter.
4. In view of the same, without expressing any opinion on
its merit, this Court considers the case of the petitioner and directs
the concerned respondents herein to decide the instant matter as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2(two) months
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
5. With the above observation and direction, this present
writ petition stands disposed of. Stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT
SINGHA
Date: 2024.07.02
SINGHA
14:09:28 +05'30'