-Report by Sejal Jethva

THE STATE OF M.P.& ORS. VS. ASHUNA SHIKSHA EVAN VIKAS SAMITY, where the plaintiff established an old age home and the collector in Bhopal was required to cover operational costs but failed to THE SAME.

FACTS:

For the benefit of the impoverished and the needy, the plaintiff founded one old age home, which was in operation until 1992. 90% of the operational costs had to be covered by the State and were paid through the Collector. The institution’s audit had to be done, and that was the responsibility of Madhya Pradesh’s Director/Commissioner of Social Welfare. The Social Welfare Department conducted an audit on 28 February 1993, and on 12 August 1994, the Collector approved the sum of Rs. 3,54,763 that should be paid to the plaintiff institution. The plaintiff was advised by defendant No. 1 that the Collector would be responsible for paying the outstanding balance. Nevertheless, the collector in Bhopal did not pay the sum.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTION:

As a result, the plaintiff filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed with the instruction that, upon the provision of proof, the Collector, Bhopal, decide within six months. The first defendant then expressed several concerns in a letter dated August 16, 1998. As a result, a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the sum specified in a letter dated 12-8- 1994 was filed, together with a court fee of Rs. 50.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:

The defendants submitted their written statement and claimed that the plaintiff had operated the senior living facility with major irregularities. When an investigation was carried out by the High Court’s judgment, the old age home was ordered to be closed by order dated January 28, 1994. Hence, it was requested that the lawsuit be dismissed.

JUDGEMENT:

1. A determination that the Respondent/Plaintiff was entitled to payment of the amount specified in the letter dated 12-8-1994, plus interest, was sought in the lawsuit. In reality, the plaintiff had brought the lawsuit to recover Rs. 3,74,763/- but by using wordplay, he claimed that the letter from 12-8-1994 had been enforced. In actuality, the lawsuit in question involved money. As a result, the plaintiff was required to pay court fees on the sum specified in the letter dated 22-8-1994, or Rs. 3,74,763/-, by Section 7(i) of the Court Fee Act. A stipulated court charge of Rs. 50 was nonetheless paid. As a result, neither the suit’s proper value nor the appropriate court fee was paid.
2. The Collector, Bhopal had only said that payment of the amount of Rs. 3,74,763/- is under the proposal in the letter dated 12-8-1994, Ex. P. The Collector made no admission of culpability.
3. Plaintiff’s witness Dr. D.B. Saxena (P.W.1) made an appearance. He has not specified why he appeared as a witness or in what capacity. He has not made it clear whether he holds office at the suing institution. He has ‘t specifically testified as to how the plaintiff was entitled to the sum in question. Moreover, he has not provided any resolution adopted by the Society to file the lawsuit.
4. This Court, therefore, believes that the plaintiff has failed to establish its entitlement to the sum of Rs. 3,74,763/-.
5. As a result, the judgment and decree issued by the first additional district judge in Bhopal on April 28, 1999, in Civil Action No. 27-A/1998 are therefore reversed.
6. The appeal is granted because it is successful. Be drafted up a decree appropriately.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/41132ao