- (1.) Petitioners-appellants, who are two in numbers, are before this Court, assailing the validity of the decision dated 24.01.2017 (Deena Nath Pandey and another v. State of U.P. and others ), wherein learned Single Judge has refused to quash the recovery in question on account of the fact that excess amount has been paid and the said fact has been admitted before this Court and in view of this recovery is justified.
(2.) Sri P.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contended before us that as far as excess payment is concerned, therein they had no role to play whatsoever as bills in question were prepared in normal course of business and payment has been accepted, in view of this, after retirement of petitioner no.1 and after lapse of long period more than five years amount in question could not be recovered.
(3.) In order to buttress the arguments that advanced before this Court, counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and another v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) decided on 18th December, 2014 reported in 2014 Law Suit (SC) 1075.;