Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 204 (CHH)

Sanjay Mishra v. Municipal Corporation

2023-04-18

P.SAM KOSHY

body2023
ORDER : (Shri. P. Sam Koshy, J.) The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking for following relief(s):- "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the subject works for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court; and/or 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue such writ orders directions the respondent to make due payment of Rs. 21, 52, 860/- to the petitioner within stipulated period, along with interest as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the obtaining factual matrix. 10.3 Cost of the petitioner may also be granted to the petitioner 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice." 2. Brief facts which led to filing of the present Writ Petition are the petitioner who is basically a proprietor of proprietorship firm in the name of Boumonde Technology. The respondent No. 1-the Municipal Corporation Bhilai floated a tender to provide bio gas plant in concept of zero garbage disposal system inclusive of Drawings, Designs, Foundation Installation, Testing, Running & Maintenance for two years along with connection of bio-produce to the users with all fixtures. 3. The petitioner finding himself to be eligible for the said tender, participated and submitted his bid and later emerged as the successful bidder. A formal agreement was entered into between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner for execution of the work for a sum of Rs. 23, 20, 000/-. The work order subsequently was issued on 26.12.2016. The petitioner commenced the work and executed the same with full diligence. The respondents issued a completion certificate also in favour of the petitioner on 19.12.2019. However, even having satisfactorily completed the work, the respondent No. 1 did not show any response for clearance of the admitted dues accrued to the petitioner and payable by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner had been repeatedly praying for release of the undisputed amount without any favourable response from the respondents. In-spite of repeated correspondences and the representations when the petitioner was unsuccessful in getting the fruits due to him for the work carried out by him, he was compelled to file the present Writ Petition. 4. The Learned counsel for respondents appeared and sought time to seek instruction when the matter was taken up for hearing. 5. In-spite of repeated correspondences and the representations when the petitioner was unsuccessful in getting the fruits due to him for the work carried out by him, he was compelled to file the present Writ Petition. 4. The Learned counsel for respondents appeared and sought time to seek instruction when the matter was taken up for hearing. 5. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 did not raise any objection so far as the nature of work executed by the petitioner, neither was there any dispute in-respect-of the quality or quantity of work executed by the petitioner. Moreover, the respondents did not even dispute issuance of completion certificate. So far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned upon seeking instruction from the respondent/State that the only hurdle for which the petitioner's dues could not be released, was the paucity of fund with the respondent No. 1 and the funds have to be received from the respondent No. 2. 6. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 further stated that whether they are committed towards the petitioner so far as his claim is concerned and the moment the funds are received from the State Government, the payment shall be forthwith released. 7. It was also the contention of Counsel for Respondents that at no point of time, do the respondents have any intention or an ill will towards the petitioner for not releasing the amount due. 8. Lastly, it was contended that the respondents have already taken steps by making repeated request to the State Government for release of sufficient funds with which the petitioner's claim can be settled and it was contended that the moment the respondent No. 2 releases the funds, the respondent No. 1 shall immediately ensure releasing of the whole admissible dues of the petitioner. 9. He further submits that the respondent No. 1 also is pursuing hard before the respondent No. 2 for release of the funds. Hopefully, the said funds shall be received at the earliest. Thereafter there should not be any further delay for redressal of grievance of the petitioner. 10. Having heard the contention put forth on either side and on perusal of records, particularly that which stands undisputed is that against a tender floated by respondent No. 1, the petitioner being the successful bidder, has executed the entire work successfully. Thereafter there should not be any further delay for redressal of grievance of the petitioner. 10. Having heard the contention put forth on either side and on perusal of records, particularly that which stands undisputed is that against a tender floated by respondent No. 1, the petitioner being the successful bidder, has executed the entire work successfully. From the instructions that has been received by the respondent No. 1, it also reveals that there is no dispute whatsoever on the nature of work executed by the petitioner the quality and quantity of work. There is also no dispute so far as the completion certificate having been issued and the claim raised by the petitioner all being admitted dues. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of M/s Surya Constructions v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 2610 of 2019 in a somewhat similar set of facts has held as under:- It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being writ civil No. 25126/2014, the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2014 dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India {ABL International Ltd. And Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. And others' ( 2004 (3) SCC 553 )}. 12. A similar view was earlier taken by the Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Appeal No. 38/2015 in the case of Om Sai Traders & Tent House v. State of Chhattisgarh decided on 19.02.2015 wherein paragraph 5 & 6 has held as under:- "5. The maintainability of a Writ Petition for a money claim was considered in (2004) 3 SCC 553 (ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. The maintainability of a Writ Petition for a money claim was considered in (2004) 3 SCC 553 (ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.) holding as follows:- "26 Therefore, this objection must also fail because in a given case it is open to the writ court to give such monetary relief also. 27. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition: (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a' State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. Similar view has been taken in (2011) 2 SCC 439 (Godavari Sugar Mills v. State of Maharashtra) at paragraph 8. 6. In absence of any disputed facts or dispute regarding the amount of money being involved we are not inclined to relegate the Appellant to the remedy of a Civil Suit. 13. Recently again, this High Court, in the case of M/s Shreejikrupa Project Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh passed in WPC No. 619/2020 decided on 14.02.2020 in paragraph 12 to 14 has held as under:- "12. Following the aforesaid judgments of Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this court in Om Sai Traders & Tent House v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WA No.38 of 2015, decided on 19.02.2015, had set aside the judgment passed by the Single Bench dismissing a writ petition of similar nature and while allowing the Writ Appeal, relying upon the aforesaid judgments, has held as under:- "6. In absence of any disputed facts or dispute regarding the amount of money being involved, we are not inclined to relegate the Appellant to the remedy of a Civil Suit. 7. Let the remaining dues of the Appellant reckoned in accordance to the respondents letter dated 22.03.2014 and 26.03.2014, after adjustment of the payment already made, be paid to the Appellant within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order failing which the Appellant shall be at liberty to claim interest upon the same." 13. Recently, this court also in WPC No.544 of 2020 in case of Vijay Kumar Garg v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. decided on 06.02.2020, had again considered the aforesaid judgments and allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to process the admissible claim of the petitioner and release the same at the earliest. 14. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to immediately process the claim of the petitioner and to release admissible dues payable to the petitioner after adjustment of any payment either already made or any statutory deductions to be made from the dues payable to the petitioner. Let the amount be paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled for interest on the said amount @ 12 percent per annum from the date the amount fell due till the payment is actually made. 14. Given the aforesaid authoritative decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also by this High Court in various similar writ petitions, where the claim raised by the petitioners were all undispusted and admitted, this Court is inclined to allow the present Writ Petition of the Petitioner as well. 15. Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondents should ensure releasing of the entire admitted dues against the bills raised by the petitioner for the work executed by them pursuant to the work order dated 26.12.2016 within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. It is further held that in the event, undisputed amount is not released within an outer limit of aforementioned 90 days' time, the entire admissible dues payable to the petitioner shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of completion certificate till the actual payment is made. 17. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed of.