Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) When the case was called out, Mr. M.M. Prasad stated that he is appearing on behalf of the petitioner and that his name has wrongly been printed showing him to be appearing for the respondents. Nobody, however, appears on behalf of either the respondent No. 1 or the respondent No. 2.
(2.) The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.9.1994 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Dhanbad (respondent No. 2) by which he dismissed the Misc. Appeal No. 136 of 1981. The above mentioned appeal was filed against the Judgment dated 10.6.1981 by which the claim in relation to undercharges for the period of March 1968 to March 1971 amounting to Rs. 60,384.49 (Rupees sixty thousand three hundred eighty four and forty nine paise) was disallowed. Against this part of the order, the petitioners filed the appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 136 of 1981. The claim of Rs. 60,384.49 was rejected on the ground that the Inspector's Report dated 20.08.1971 which was the basis of the claim was apparently prepared behind the back of the opposite parties and it did not bear the signature of the Owner/ Owners/Authorized Agents.
(3.) From a perusal of the order appealed against, it would be apparent that the Assistant Commissioner of Payments came to a conclusion that the very basis of the claim dated 20.8.1971 in relation to undercharges was prepared on a plain paper and not in the proper form. He, therefore, came to a conclusion that in all fairness such a document should have been prepared in presence of the Owner. He also came to a conclusion that the inspection report being the basis of the claim and having been prepared ex parte could not be said to be a valid and genuine document. There was no irregularity nor any illegality in the order and therefore, the Appellate Authority rightly rejected that part of the claim. This writ application, therefore, does not have any merit. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.;