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
Versus
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
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY
----
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respondents which has been deducted/withdrawn arbitrarily,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
24.5.2000
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
correct.
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.
(AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J.)
Jharkhand High Court,
Ranchi. Dated 17.11.2009
N.A.F.R./S.I
