Urmila Agro Farm Through Its vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 17 November, 2009

Jharkhand High Court
Urmila Agro Farm Through Its vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 17 November, 2009
                             WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3002 OF 2002
                 [In the matter of an Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India]
                 1. Urmila Agro Farm
                 2. Vijay Kumar Mittal     ...... ...... Petitioners
                 1. The State of Jharkhand
                 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
                 3. Mr. G.P.A. Kujur       ...... .....     Respondent/Opposite Parties
                 For the Petitioners       :   Mr. G.M. Mishra
                 For the Respondents       :   S.C. -III


Amareshwar Sahay, J.    In this writ petition the prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to

                 issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the

                 respondents to release the genuine dues payable to the petitioners by the

                 respondents      which     has      been     deducted/withdrawn        arbitrarily,

                 unreasonably, capriciously behind the back of the petitioners without any

                 notice and or information to the petitioners at the behest of the

                 Respondent No.3 to deprive the petitioners' legitimate dues, non-payment

                 of which is seriously jeopardized them.

                        According to the petitioners an order for supply of 87 Bee-keeping

                 Sets was given to the petitioners after their offer was found to be lowest.

                 Out of 87 Bee-keeping sets, 32 sets were supplied by the petitioners, for

                 which they received the payment as per the contract. The dispute arose

                 only with regard to the supply of remaining 55 Bee-keeping sets which

                 according to the respondents were of sub-standard, and therefore, there

                 were some dispute with regard to the payment of the price of said 55

                 Bee-keeping sets. According to the petitioners, the respondents arbitrarily

                 reduced the contract price and deducted the amount causing serious

                 financial loss to the petitioners and the amount of second bill and third bill

                 submitted by the petitioners were not paid to them.             Though a notice

                 under Section 80 of the C.P.C. was given to the respondents, but when no

                 action was taken then this writ petition has been filed.
        A counter affidavit has been filed of which the paragraph nos. 11

and 12 are relevant for the purpose of this case. The same are repeated

herein below:

       That it is stated that on the light of the report of the Smt. Meena

Thakur, Deputy Collector-cum-Assistant Project Officer, D.R.D.A., Bokaro.

The District Authority Committee on 5.3.2001 held a meeting under the

Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and also informing the

petitioner to attend the meeting. The petitioner was present in the

meeting and know the entire matter. In meeting it has been decided to

revise the Bee-keeping set at the rate of Rs.8965/- each of 3 Sets.

       That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner did not made

any objection and have accepted the final payment made on 23.3.2001

for the aforesaid 55 sets supplied by the petitioner. The entire payment

as per revised rate has been made to the petitioner against the Bill dated


and 7.8.2000 and that time also petitioner has not made any

objection. So the petitioner is not entitled to any payment which was

already made by the respondents.

Therefore, from the averments made in the aforesaid two

paragraphs of the counter affidavit, it appears that the main stand of the

respondents are that to resolve the dispute with regard to the payment of

55 Bee-keeping sets, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the

Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, which was attended by the petitioners also

and in the said meeting it was decided to revise the price of the Bee-

keeping sets @ Rs.8965/- each of 3 sets and pursuant thereto payment

was made to the petitioner, which the petitioners accepted on 23.3.2001

without any objection. These facts stated in the paragraph nos. 11 and 12

of the counter affidavit have not been disputed by the petitioners in their

rejoinder to the counter affidavit.

From the averments made in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit

it appears that it has not been denied or disputed that the petitioners
were present in the meeting held on 5.3.2001 under the Chairmanship of

the Deputy Commissioner in which the rate was reduced at Rs.8965/-

each for 3 sets and the petitioner thereafter received the payment for

supply of 55 Bee-keeping sets without any objection. In such a situation

when the petitioners have already received the payment for supply of

remaining 55 bee-keeping sets without any objection, then by filing this

writ petition they cannot be allowed to raise same very dispute on the

ground that the deduction was made arbitrarily, which is not factually


Accordingly, in my view, the petitioners have not been able to

make out a case for grant of any relief. Hence, having found no merit this

writ petition is dismissed.


Jharkhand High Court,
Ranchi. Dated 17.11.2009

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information