Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 784 (CAL)

Ashim Kumar Ray v. Chief Engineer, Eastern Zone, All India Radio

2007-10-08

SOUMITRA PAL

body2007
Judgment :- (1) LET the notice dated 14th September, 2007 filed in Court today be kept with the records. (2) AT the outset the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that since the claim is regarding the payment of money, the remedy is by way of filing a suit. (3) IN the petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to release a sum of Rs. 7,30,070/-for carrying out painting of 176 meter steel tower at Doordarshan Kendra, Kolkata. It has been stated that work was entrusted as the petitioner was selected as the lowest tenderer. Upon completion a bill of Rs. 7,30,070/- was raised. Regarding payment, on 21st November, 2006 the petitioner was informed by the executive Engineer (Civil) All India Radio, CCW, Kolkata as under:- "kindly refer to your letter dated 06. 11. 2006 on the above subject. It is to inform you that final bill is ready and payment will be made after receipt of fund. The matter has been taken up with the competent authority for allocation of fund and it is assured that the payment will be made as soon as fund is available. " (4) IT is evident from the intimation that the respondents have accepted the claim of the petitioner as neither it is disputed that the work was carried out nor the bill has been questioned. The issue is whether the question raised on behalf of the respondent can be accepted. In my view, since the claim of the petitioner is undisputed the answer has to be in the negative as, in that event it would be giving indulgence to the inaction on the part of the authorities in making payment on the specious plea of non-availability of fund. Delay in payment for lack of finance is no ground as funds should have been made available since the State had knowingly entered into a contract and such inaction puts the petitioner at the receiving end. (5) THEREFORE, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the superintending Engineer, All India Radio, CCW, Doordarshan Kendra, Kolkata and Executive Engineer (Civil), All India Radio, Kolkata, the respondent nos. (5) THEREFORE, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the superintending Engineer, All India Radio, CCW, Doordarshan Kendra, Kolkata and Executive Engineer (Civil), All India Radio, Kolkata, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively to release the fund for payment of the amount to the petitioner within a fortnight from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order. If funds are not released and payment is not made to the petitioner within the time as stipulated, the said respondents shall pay the amount along with an interest @ 7% per annum from the date of presentation of the bill till the actual date of payment. So far as the prayer for refund of security deposit is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to make application to the respondent authorities and if such application is furnished, the same shall be disposed of within a fortnight from the date of filing such application. (6) THE writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.