Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 38 (MEG)

Weldason R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya

2016-10-14

S.R.SEN

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.R. Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. N.I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H. Kharmih, learned GA for the respondents. 2. The brief fact of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: "The petitioner is a businessman and sole proprietor of M/s Durama Chibasal and Traders at Williamnagar, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya. The petitioner as a supplier submitted a quotation for supplying books to the respondent against the invitation/ quotation vide Memo. No. EGH/SSA/12/2006/841-849 dated 12.7.2006 which approved by the Purchased Committee and who later informed to the petitioner vide Memo. No. EGH/SSA/12/2006/1348 dated 15.11.2006. The petitioner thereafter executed the supply of books as per terms of the contract but after completion of the supply, the petitioner belatedly received an impugned letter from the Respondent No. 4 bearing No. EGH/SSA/ 12/2006/1402 dated 8.1.2007 to deduct Rs. 40 per child on the basis of instruction received from Respondent No. 2 and the total amount of Rs. 8,13,600/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred) only was deducted from bill of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter submitted a joint protest petition to the State Project Director on 28.1.2007 requesting for payment and to cancel the order issued for deduction after completion of supply. But the respondents after series of communication replied by admitting the total claim of the petitioner. However, unfortunately till date no payment has been made by the respondents to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary and illegal deduction of the petitioner's outstanding dues the petitioner prefer this writ petition." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a sole proprietor of M/s Durama Chibasal and Traders at Williamnagar, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya had supplied Text books for Upper Primary Schools in the office of the District Mission Coordinator (DMC), District Unit, Sarva Shiksha Abhyian Mission Authority Meghalaya (SSAMAM), East Garo Hills, Williamnagar for the year 2006-2007. Inspite of supplying the books to the satisfaction of the respondent, till date the payment amounting to Rs. 8,13,600/- (Rupees eight lakhs thirteen thousand six hundred) only has not been paid to the petitioner. Hence, this instant writ petition and prayed for necessary direction. 4. Inspite of supplying the books to the satisfaction of the respondent, till date the payment amounting to Rs. 8,13,600/- (Rupees eight lakhs thirteen thousand six hundred) only has not been paid to the petitioner. Hence, this instant writ petition and prayed for necessary direction. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel fairly submits that, it is a fact that the petitioner had supplied articles (books) found to be genuine as appeared in Page 18 Annexure-VI of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4. 5. I have perused the Annexure-VI of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4 and the last Para of the said affidavit is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "Under the above clarifications, may I have the honour to state that the outstanding amount claimed by the firms/Suppliers are genuine and on verification of office records, the undersigned has found that the Test Books have actually been supplied by the suppliers and distributed to the school children during the year 2006-2007. Therefore, I request you kindly to take necessary steps to pay the outstanding amount to the suppliers concerned as early as possible to avoid further intricate mixture of inconvenience." From the Annexure-VI, it appears that the said letter is dated 4th March, 2008. 6. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel at Bar and after perusal of the Annexure-VI as quoted above, the matter is crystal clear before this Court that the petitioner had supplied the Text books in the year 2006-2007 and the same has been found to be genuine and distributed to the school. If it is so, the principle of natural justice demands that the petitioner is without any doubt entitled to the costs of Text books. I cannot understand since the matter is pending since 2008 and the process is going on, why payment has not been made to the petitioner in time and thus causing loss to the petitioner; had the petitioner obtained his costs of Text books in time amounting to Rs. 8,13,600/- (Rupees eight lakhs thirteen thousand six hundred) only, he could have either deposited that money in the Bank and in the difference of almost 10 (ten) years, he would have obtained double of the amount or otherwise; or he could have invested the said amount on other business. 8,13,600/- (Rupees eight lakhs thirteen thousand six hundred) only, he could have either deposited that money in the Bank and in the difference of almost 10 (ten) years, he would have obtained double of the amount or otherwise; or he could have invested the said amount on other business. Therefore, I cannot just shut down my eyes that injustice has already been caused to the petitioner. Hence, in my considered view the petitioner is entitled to certain amount of interest for not receiving the payment in time inspite of the fact that he had supplied the Text books to the respondent. Therefore, this Court directs the respondent to release the pending amount of Text books costing Rs. Rs. 8,13,600/- (Rupees eight lakhs thirteen thousand six hundred) only along with 6% interest with effect from 31.03.2008 till such payment is released. It is further directed that the payment is to be released within a month. It is also further ordered that the Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya to depute Sr. Officer to make an enquiry as to who is/are responsible for the delay of payment and causing inconvenience to the petitioner and also a burden to the public exchequer. It is also further directed that whoever is found responsible for the delay in payment, the interest portion of the principal amount to be realize from the erring officials. 7. With this observation and direction this instant writ petition is allowed to that extent and stands disposed of.