Yaduveer Singh Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26206
1 WP-1249-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1249 of 2023
YADUVEER SINGH KUSHWAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Chouhan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Mishra - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief(s):-
"7.7.1 That, the respondent kindly directed to make payment of
amount of Rs. 5,96,000/- along with interest of 12% p.a. from the
month of January 2017 till the date of payment.
7.2 That, the respondent authority kindly also directed to settling
the claim of the petitioner.
7.3 That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered."
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the President of Bus
Operator Union, District Bhind which is a registered body. On 10th and 11th
of December 2016, Agriculture Fair was organized by the district authorities
in the Jagdish Marriage Garden, District- Bhind. For that purpose, buses
were sought to be deployed. The respondent No.5 has acquired the buses of
the petitioner for bringing the farmers from their villages within the district
of Bhind to the place of the Agriculture Fair. The acquisition of buses were
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:51:47 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26206
2 WP-1249-2023
with a promise to pay the consideration for bringing the farmers to the

above-said place to the tune of Rs. 2,30,000/-.
3. Again on 01-01-2017, the Antyodaya Mela (Kisan Maha
Sammellan) was organized in the town of Phoop, District Bhind, for which
the buses were again acquired from the petitioner for the same purpose.
Again, an amount of Rs. 3.66 lakhs was to be paid for this second
requisition. Despite providing buses and transporting villagers to the spot of
fair, the amount was not paid by the concerned authority. As such, the
petitioner submitted a representation before the Collector, District Bhind on
14-2-2019 for making payment. Petitioner again submitted representation on
18-3-2019 to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, and has continued to submit
representations up to 31-5-2022.
4. The respondents, though did not deny the payment, however, they
continued to make empty promises, but did not make payment. In such
circumstances, the petitioner contacted the higher authorities, whereupon a
letter was issued by the respondent No.5 on 3-6-2022 to the respondent No.4,
thereby mentioning that the claim of the petitioner has not been settled as the
office of Zila Panchayat has received only an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs from the
Agriculture Department, out of which some of the amount has already been
spent in other heads, and only an amount of Rs. 34,642/- is available. Hence,
the payment to the petitioner is not possible. The respondent No.5 as such
requested to arrange for the payment of the petitioner.
5. Pursuant to the letter dated 3-6-2022, the concerned authority has
sent letter to the Project Director, Antodaya Mela (Kisan Maha Samellan),
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:51:47 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26206
3 WP-1249-2023
thereby making certain query. The Project Director responded by letter dated

15-6-2022 mentioning that a total amount of Rs. 9.50 lakhs was received
from the respondent No. 2, and against that, an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs has
been provided to the respondent No.5, and remaining amount of Rs. 2.50
lakhs has been spent in other heads. The payment thus was not made, and the
petitioner was made to run from pillar to post.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the backdrop of aforesaid facts
has contended that the authorities have sent the buck from one officer to
another officer without ensuring payment of the petitioner. He submits that
there is complete absence of any dispute regarding the amount of payment or
the entitlement of the amount to the petitioner, but only for the unavailability
of funds, the payment is not being made. He thus submits that looking to the
communication between the respondents, it is crystal clear that the petitioner
deserves to be paid the amount as claimed for, but for availability of the
same, the payment is not being made. Thus, a direction deserves to be issued
to the respondents for making payment.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that although the
amount is not disputed, however, it can also not be said that the entire
amount has to be paid to the petitioner only as the petitioner was working in
the capacity of the President of Union of Bus Operators. Thus, the payment
has to be made to several bus operators whose buses were taken over for the
purpose as aforesaid. She thus submits that even after acknowledging that
there is no dispute about the amount which has to be paid, still it can be
disputed that the entire amount is not to be paid to the petitioner. She thus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:51:47 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26206
4 WP-1249-2023
submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. Responding to the submission of learned counsel for the State,
learned counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder submission states that the
concerned authority of the Transport Department has already clarified that it
was the responsibility of the petitioner, being the President of the Union, to
provide buses and the payment has to be made to the President himself, and
he will be responsible for disbursal of the amount to all the persons who are
entitled for the same.
9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
10. In view of the facts as enumerated above, particularly taking into
consideration the letters dated 03-06-2022 as well as 06-06-2022 and 15-06-
2022, it is crystal clear that the respondents have corresponded within
themselves stating that out of the total fund of Rs. 9.50 lakhs received, a
major amount has been spent in other heads, thus there is no funds available
for making payment to the petitioner. The facts as recorded in these three
letters (Annexures P-5 to P-7) would state in no uncertain terms that the
dispute is not regarding the entitlement of payment or the deployment of
buses, but the only problem is unavailability of the funds.
11. Once the respondents have taken over the buses of the petitioner
and deployed them, they cannot deny payment by citing reasons that the
funds are not available. This was to be considered before taking over the
buses of the petitioner and before organizing the fair.
12. Considering that the amount which has been claimed for by the
petitioner is undisputed amount, the petition is hereby allowed. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:51:47 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26206
5 WP-1249-2023
respondents are directed to ensure payment of the amount of Rs. 2.30 lakhs

and 3.66 lakhs to the petitioner within an outer limit of one month from the
date of communication of this order, in absence of which the amount shall
carry interest @ 9% per annum from the 31st day from the date of
communication of this order.
13. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
VJ

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:51:47 PM