Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 103 (GAU)

Tayum Yalli v. Union of India

2002-03-01

N.SURJAMANI SINGH

body2002
N.S. SINGH, J.— These cases involve common questions of facts and laws and, as such, these were taken up together for hearing and, accordingly, the same are disposed of finally on its own merit with the following Judgment. 2. In W.P.(C) No.56(AP) of 2000, the petitioner Smt. Tayum Yalli made a prayer for a direction to the respondents particularly, the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to release and make payment of the outstanding amount/undisputed balance amount of Rs. 4,42,5997- being the final payment of bills prepared by the authorities concerned for construction of R.C.C. Bridge at 9 K.M. point on the Doimukh-Hoj Road under various work orders by contending inter alia, that the petitioner executed the related works and completed the same for which, the official respondents / authorities concerned had prepared the final bills mentioned above as seen in the related bills vide, Annexures 1 and 8 to the petition but, the authorities concerned had not released the bill amount or make payment of it to the writ petition despite repeated approaches to them. 3. Similar statement and claim/prayer has been made by the writ petitioner Mrs. Tana Yok in W.P.(C) No.57(AP) of 2000 for a direction to the respondents particularly, respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 to make payment and release the undisputed balance amount of Rs. 90,1437 - being the final payment of the bills vide, Annexure-I to the writ petition for execution of works namely, construction of R.C.C. Creating Wall at 5 K.M. point on the Doimukh- Hoj Road under various work orders. 4. Likewise, the petitioner Shri Nabam Lala in W.P.(C) No.58(AP) of 2000 sought for the same and similar relief with a direction to the said respondents for payment of final bill to the tune of Rs. 4,77,1937- for the construction of side drainage walls at 9 K.M. point on the Doimukh-Hoj Road under various work orders. 5. Similarly, Smt. Tana Yamin, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.59(AP) of 2000 also made a prayer for a direction to the said respondents to release and make payment of the undisputed balance amount of Rs.90,351/- for the construction of RCC Creating Wall at 2,734 K.M. point on the Doimukh-Hoj Road under various work orders; Shri Tana Tahi, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.61 (AP) of 2000 also claims for payment of the undisputed balance amount of Rs. 66.484/- for construction of R.C.C. Creating Wall at 5,7,10 K.M. point on the Doimukh-Hoj Road; Smti. Tayeng Manya, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.62(AP) of 2000 made a prayer for a direction to the said respondents to release and make payment of the undisputed balance amount of Rs. 2,57,806/- for construction of R.C.C. Wall at 12 K.M. point on the Doimukh-Hoj Road; Shri Techi Racho, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.88(AP) of 2000 made a prayer for a direction to the said respondent to release and make payment of the undisputed balance amount of Rs.74,738/- for construction of R.C.C. Wall at 11 K.M. point on the Doimukh-Hoj Road; Shri Techi Bagang, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.89(AP) of 2000 also made the similar prayer to release and make payment of the undisputed balance amount of Rs. 74,782/- for construction of R.C.C. Wall at 11 K.M. point on the Doimukh-Hoj Road; in W.P.(C) No.90(AP) of 2000, the writ petitioners Shri Techi Beya and Smti. Techi Yanym also make a prayer to release and make payment of the undisputed balance amount of Rs. 40,389/- for execution of the works namely, construction of Labour Quarters, Bamboo supply at 2 K.M. point on the Doimukh-Hoj Road; in W.P.(C) No.91 (AP) of 2000, the writ petitioner Shri Tana Akal made the similar prayer to release and make payment of the undisputed balance amount of Rs. 62,2687- for execution of the works viz., construction of R.C.C. Creating Wall at 5, 7, 10 K.M. point on the Doimukh-Hoj Road; in W.P.(C) No.92(AP) of 2000, the writ petitioner Shri Tana Nachu also made a prayer for a direction to the said respondents to release and make payment of the undisputed balance amount of Rs. 27,1357- for execution of the works viz., construction of R.C.C. Creating Wall at 5, 7, 10 K.M. point on the Doimukh-Hoj Road; in W.P.(C) No.93(AP) of 2000, the writ petioner Shri Taying Pakhi made a prayer for a direction to the said respondents to release and make payment of the .undisputed balance amount of Rs.71,9507- for execution of the works namely, construction of R.C.C. Wall at 11 K.M. point on the Doimukh-Hoj Road and, the writ petitioner Shri Bengia Tana in W.P.(C) No.ll2(AP) of 2000 made the similar prayer to release and make payment of the undisputed balance amount of Rs. 1,68,2007- for execution of the works namely, collection of stone materials and stacking at 15 & 16 KMs and two home pipe culverts at 17 & 28 KMs point on the Doimukh-Hoj Road, under various work orders. 6. Mr. T. Son, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that these writ petitioners claimed for payment of undisputed balance amount mention above for execution/construction of the related works but, the same has not been paid by the authorities concerned despite the liabilities which were once admitted by the respondents/appropriate authorities. According to Mr. Son, learned counsel, such undisputed amount/money should be released forthwith as the petitioners herein have been put under hardship by the respondent-authorities. 7. At the hearing, Mr. I.Riram, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents submitted that the State respondents are not liable to make payment of such amount and, apart from that, the respondents concerned cannot be held responsible for any loss or hardship of the writ petitioners. 8. I have perused the available materials on record and it appears to me that the authorities concerned prepared the final bills for the works done and executed by the writ petitioners. However, no payment has been made as such thus, putting these writ petitioner in hardship, in other words the liabilities as claimed by the writ petitioners were once admitted by the appropriate authorities and that being the position, the competent authorities are bound to release the outstanding liabilities to and in favour of these petitioners as early as possible. 9, Law is well settled in this regard. It is well accepted principles of law that the liability and action ability of Government in contract have been widely recognized in the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. In India the contractual liability of the Government is to be found in Articles 298,299 and 300 of the Constitution. Article 298 lays down that for the purpose of carrying out the functions of the State Government can enter into contracts. Article 299 contains essential formalities which a government contract must fulfil. Article 300 provides the manner in which suits and proceedings against or by the government may be instituted. The constitutional code for government contract is not complete, therefore, it is supplemented by the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The legal analysis of government contracts is a matter of growing importance. Article 300 provides the manner in which suits and proceedings against or by the government may be instituted. The constitutional code for government contract is not complete, therefore, it is supplemented by the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The legal analysis of government contracts is a matter of growing importance. Government contracts cannot be viewed purely as being similar in all respects to private contracts between two individuals, for here both administrative and contractual powers intersect. In this area, there is need to protect public interest and also to protect individuals against unfair exercise of administrative power. Such contracts raise problems of public law, such as, estoppel, natural justice, fundamental rights, writ jurisdiction etc. The law in this area in India is still in the process of evolution. Formerly the judicial view had been that a writ petition is not an appropriate remedy for the enforcement of contractual obligations. The remedy in case of breach of a government contract was imply a suit for damages. In recent times the judicial trend is to regard contracts between government and private individuals as not merely a matter of private law but, to some extent, of public law as well. A feeling is gathering strength that government is always a government whether it is dealing with matters of administration or contract. The government ought therefore be held subject to some public law discipline in the contractual area. 10. For the foregoing reasons and discussions made above, this Court has no alternative but, to opine that it would be just and fair on the part of the official respondents/competent authorities concerned to release the outstanding liabilities to and in favour of these writ petitioners as early as possible so that justice is being done from their end and the writ petitioner will not require further to approach the authorities concerned even the Court from time to time. It is also needless to mention that these writ petitioners have enforceable legal rights in the instant case and the respondents herein are jointly and severally liable for payment and release of the outstanding liabilities mentioned above which cannot be denied to these writ petitioners. It is also needless to mention that these writ petitioners have enforceable legal rights in the instant case and the respondents herein are jointly and severally liable for payment and release of the outstanding liabilities mentioned above which cannot be denied to these writ petitioners. Therefore, I direct the respondents/competent authorities concerned to release the outstanding liabilities / bill amounts mentioned above and make payment of it to these writ petitioners in terms of their respective claims/bill amounts as early as possible preferably, within a period of 2(two) months from today, if not paid earlier, but, it is made clear that such payment should be made without interest. It is further made clear that if the respondents/authorities concerned fail to make such payment within the stipulated period, they are bound to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of making or preparation of the final bills of the contractual amounts till the full payment of it is made and, ~if any part payment is made out of the outstanding bills/amounts, it should be adjusted accordingly by the appropriate authorities after verifying the same. For the reasons, observations and direction made above, these writ petitions are finally disposed of but, no order as to costs.