A contractor approached the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking payment for phenyle supplies accepted and utilized by the State without objection. The court directed payment of dues with interest.
Direction to pay the pendent bill amount of Rs. 7,05,078/- within 08 weeks with interest at 6% p.a. thereafter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 2031 of 2024
------Petitioner
VERSUS
---- Respondents
(cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Siddhant Kumar Das, Advocate For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD
23/07/2024
“ 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relation to the case of the petitioner from the Respondents. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court be kindly be pleased to direct the respondents, particularly respondent no. 2 Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raigarh to forthwith release the dues to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 7,05,078/- along with interest. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”
Based on the rate contract floated by Respondent No. 3, Respondent
2
No. 2 has issued supply order for supply of phenyle vide supply order dated 28.02.2023. Petitioner supplied the goods and also submitted the invoice bills for payment of sum of Rs. 7,05,125/- including the Goods and Services Tax applicable. The invoice bill was submitted on 22.03.2023, however, till date the payment is not made. Petitioner submitted representation to Respondent No. 3 as also Respondent No. 2 on 17.01.2024 and 11.03.2024 respectively, however, even then the amount has not been paid. Therefore, direction be issued to Respondent No. 2 who is the competent authority, placed the supply order, to disburse the amount of Rs. 7,05,078/- as per the invoice bill Annexure P-4. He also pointed out that after supply of the goods as ordered, it was accepted without any objection with respect to quantity and quality.
3
and the documents placed on record.
“ 10. It is clear from the above observations of this Court in the said case, though a writ was not issued on the facts of that case, this Court has held that on a given set of facts if a State acts in an arbitrary manner even in a matter of contract, an aggrieved party can approach the court by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution and the court depending on facts of the said case is empowered to grant the relief. This judgment in K.N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore [AIR 1954 SC 592 : (1955) 1 SCR 305] was followed subsequently by this Court in the
1 (2004) 3 SCC 553
4
case of D.F.O. v. Ram Sanehi Singh [(1971) 3 SCC 864] wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 865, para 4)
23. It is clear from the above observations of this Court, once the State or an instrumentality of the State is a party of the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if by the impugned repudiation of the claim of the appellants the first respondent as an instrumentality of the State has acted in contravention of the abovesaid requirement of Article 14, then we have no hesitation in holding that a writ court can issue suitable directions to set right the arbitrary actions of the first respondent. ...”
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
/pāwān
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable against non-payment of dues arising from a supply order under a state contract.
Whether the state can withhold payment of undisputed billed goods merely because of internal departmental proceedings against an official who placed the order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ABL International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.Explained¶29
ABL International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 553] · Who else cites this
K.N. Guruswamy v. State of MysoreExplained¶29
K.N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore [AIR 1954 SC 592 : (1955) 1 SCR 305] · Who else cites this
D.F.O. v. Ram Sanehi SinghExplained¶33
D.F.O. v. Ram Sanehi Singh [(1971) 3 SCC 864] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dhanvantri Chemicals
State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare
Assistant Commissioner, Department of Tribal Welfare, Raigarh
Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
