Facts of the Case
The Petitioner, a Medical Institute, had entered into an MOU with the Government of Tamil Nadu for establishing training centres to conduct training to students of Government Schools and Government Aided Higher Secondary Schools in the State of Tamil Nadu.
According to the MOU, the Institute had established 312 centres in addition to the 100 free training centres as inaugurated by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner stated that an amount of Rs. 18 Crore was spent for the period October 2017 to April 2019 and requested the Government to settle that amount by submitting representations addressed to 1st respondent. Since the representation was not considered, a writ petition is filed.
Arguments by the Parties
The Respondents had submitted that for early settlement of the outstanding payments for services rendered by the petitioners, the respondents were inclined to convene a meeting, in which the petitioners were to participate with all necessary materials and a report was to be filed before the court.
It was submitted that the claim of the Petitioner was under active consideration of the 1st Respondent and according to the petitioner’s submission, the 1st Respondent sought 12 weeks’ time to verify all the relevant documents for settlement of the outstanding dues.
The Petitioner had submitted that the petitioner would cooperate with the 1st Respondent and if any additional documents were required, the Petitioner’s were ready to furnish the same. According to the Petitioner, 8 weeks’ time was sufficient for respondents to consider the claim of the Petitioner.
The court had observed that the representation of the Petitioner was under active consideration of the 1st Respondent. Thus, after considering, the court directed the 1st Respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner based on the representation dated 24.08.2020 with all relevant documents and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any additional documentation was required, the 1st respondent was at liberty to seek any additional documents from the Petitioner.
In lieu of the above observations and the submissions made, the court had disposed of the petition and made directions as above.
Click here to view the judgment.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.