Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 448 (GAU)

Kanchan Bagree v. State of Assam

2016-05-24

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. N.C. Das, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Government Advocate. 2. The petitioner is a registered Government supplier and in pursuant to the NIT dated 25.1.2008 (Annexure-1) issued by the DIG of Police (A), Assam, she supplied ration articles during 2008 - 2009, to meet the police requirement in few districts of Assam. The items like Rice, Ata, Suger and Salt are controlled commodities and the supplier was required to lift these items at control price from the Food & Civil Supplies Department and make the supply and she was entitled to raise bill by adding the transportation charge and profit margin. But if the actual requirement can’t be met from the Government quota, the supplier was required to procure the items from other sources and make the supply as per requirement of the Police Authorities. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was required to procure a portion of the requirement from the open market as per the indents issued to her. Since the payment for the supplied items were not received, the WP(C) No.280/2011 was filed earlier by the petitioner. This case was disposed of on the very first day by accepting the submission of the petitioner’s lawyer that the case is covered by the ratio of Tamsher Ali Vs. State of Assam reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. Consequently this Court passed the order on 21.1.2011 (Annexure-7), whereby the respondents were directed to consider the outstanding bills of the petitioner as per the ratio of Tamsher Ali (supra), within a period of 3 months from the date of the judgment. 4. Subsequent to the above direction issued by the Court, a speaking order was passed by the DIG of Police (A) on 13.4.2011, whereby it was declared that the supplier was already paid Rs.1,29,52,496/- and she is not entitled to receive any additional amount as has been claimed by the supplier. Aggrieved by this decision, the supplier has filed this 2nd writ petition. 5. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.C. Das submits that the balance requirement beyond what could be supplied from the Government quota, was delivered from the open market and therefore the payment to the supplier should be made at the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of the District under Clause 14 of the NIT. Mr. 5. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.C. Das submits that the balance requirement beyond what could be supplied from the Government quota, was delivered from the open market and therefore the payment to the supplier should be made at the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of the District under Clause 14 of the NIT. Mr. Das argues that the petitioner is not claiming any higher rate than what was fixed by the Deputy Commissioner and therefore her claim for additional payment ought to have been entertained, by the respondents. 6. On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Government Advocate submits that the DGP on 27.6.2008 stipulated a uniform rate for the controlled items with reference to the rates fixed by the Directorate of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumers Affairs, Assam during the year 2008 - 2009. Therefore Mr. Deka contends that uniform rate as fixed by the DGP should be the basis on which, payment can be allowed for the supplies made in 2008 - 2009. 7. In the impugned speaking order, the DGP of Police had noted that for the controlled items like Rice, Ata, Suger and Salt, uniform rate are fixed by the DGP based on the Government rates. The market rate per quintal is also specified by the Directorate of Food & Civil Supplies. Here the payment to the supplier was made on the basis of the uniform rate fixed by the DGP as the market rate as fixed by the Food & Civil Supplies Department, was higher. Logically if only the rate fixed by the Food & Civil Supplies Department is applicable, there was no necessity for the DGP to stipulate the uniform rate on 27.6.2008 and fixing the uniform rate for the 4 controlled items by the DGP in my opinion clearly indicates that payment will be made as per the uniform rate, if this rate is lower than the market rate, notified by the Directorate of Food & Civil Supplies. 8. The petitioner as a regular supplier to the Police Department must have been aware of the uniform rate for the controlled items specified by the DGP on 27.6.2008, when she made the supplies in 2008 - 2009. 8. The petitioner as a regular supplier to the Police Department must have been aware of the uniform rate for the controlled items specified by the DGP on 27.6.2008, when she made the supplies in 2008 - 2009. The knowledge of the supplier about the payment to be made at the uniform rate fixed by the DGP can also be noticed from Clause 7 of the Deed of Agreement dated 8.5.2008 between the petitioner and the Police Department. Here it was stipulated that when the supplier is required to deliver articles from any other source beyond the Government quota, the DGP can fix a reasonable rate based on the rates certified by the Deputy Commissioners. Therefore the claim for additional payment by disregarding the reasonable rate fixed by the DGP was not entertained by the authorities and that is why further amount claimed by the supplier was rejected. The speaking order reflects the basis on which the excess claim of the supplier was not entertained and having regard to the specification of the reasonable rate by the DGP on 27.6.2008 and the supplier being on notice about such rate under Clause 7 of the bilateral agreement dated 8.5.2008, I find no infirmity with the impugned speaking order of the DIG of Police. Thus the writ petition is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The parties to bear their respective cost.