Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 569 (GAU)

Brahmputra Enterprise v. APDCL

2017-05-12

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a private enterprise functioning in the name and style of M/s Brahmputra Enterprise. It is stated that the petitioner was a franchisee under the scheme IBDF of the APDCL and its permanent office is at Village-Bakatpara in the District of Udalguri. The petitioner had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the APDCL on 07.06.2012 for operating 11 KV Dolongghat feeder of Mangaldoi Electrical Circle under the Input Based Distribution Franchisee (IBDF) scheme. It is stated that as per the MOU, the petitioner had performed the work and got its bill for an amount of Rs.6,22,808/- in the month of May, 2014. It is also the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the petitioner had performed certain extra duties, which were not included in the MOU, but has been performed as per the verbal order of DGM Mangaldai Electrical Circle. It is the case of the petitioner that they have actually performed certain extra duties and the respondent authorities with full knowledge had accepted their work. Consequently, the petitioner makes a claim in this writ petition for an amount of Rs. 22,56,550/- for the extra work done by them for the APDCL along with interest of 18% per anum. 3. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned standing counsel for the APDCL, on the other hand, states that the petitioner had not performed any such extra work and therefore, they are not entitled for any such payment. The rival stand of the parties appears to be a disputing question of fact. On one hand, the petitioner is making a claim that they have performed certain extra work, on the other hand, the respondent authorities stated that they have not performed any such extra work. It being so, it would be difficult for this Court in exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to arrive at an appropriate decision as to whether the petitioner had done any such extra work or whether the respondents are right in saying that they had not performed any extra work. 4. It being so, it would be difficult for this Court in exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to arrive at an appropriate decision as to whether the petitioner had done any such extra work or whether the respondents are right in saying that they had not performed any extra work. 4. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate that interest of justice would be met if the petitioner submits a detailed representation containing the details of the extra work that they have claimed to have done and submit the same before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 upon receiving such representation shall give due consideration to the same and also give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing to establish their case that they have performed some extra work. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 shall pass speaking order either accepting or rejecting the claim of the petitioner for its remuneration against the purported extra work. The petitioner may submit his representation within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and within a period of 3 (three) months thereafter, the respondent No.3 shall give due consideration to the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.