Disposed

B.R.G. Enterprise v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Nov 2022WP(C)/3248/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a supply contractor, challenged the State's failure to honor a bill for supplied flower pots and saplings. The High Court held that lack of technical sanction and late verification were not valid denials. The Court directed the Principal Chief Conservator to conduct a hearing and pass orders for payment within two months if supplies were verified. The Writ Petition was finally disp

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to apply to the Principal Chief Conservator for a hearing to establish supplies made, and he was directed to pass payment orders within two months if established.

B.R.G. Enterprise Vs the State of Assam and 4… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010110632020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3248/2020

¶5

B.R.G. ENTERPRISE REP. BY BISWAJIT DAS NOONMATI TINIALI LOKHRA ROAD GUWAHATI-781040 K (M) ASSAM. CONT. NO.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GHY.-06 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.

¶8

2:THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (CSASFC) CENTRAL SOUTHERN ASSAM SOCIAL FORESTRY CIRCLE BASISTHA GUWAHATI-29. 3:THE DY. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BASISTHA GUWAHATI-29. 4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (DFO) GUWAHATI SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION BASISTHA GHY.-29. 5:THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER CITY PLANTATION RANGE BASISTHA GHY.-29.

¶9

Page No.# 2/5

¶10

6:FINANCE DEPTT. OF THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM.

¶12

-----------Advocate for : MR. R C DAS Advocate for : SC

¶13

FOREST appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶16

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶17

Date : 03-11-2022

¶18

Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6, being the authorities under the Forest Department of the Government of Assam. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, being the authorities under the Finance Department of the Government of Assam.

¶19

The petitioner M/s BRG Enterprise was issued supply orders all dated 10.07.2017 by the Range Forest Officer, Sonapur Social Forestry Division for the supply of the following:

¶20

Supply Order No. CPR/INV.Q/SUPPLY.O/62

¶21

Sl.	Item	Offered rateper no.	Qty.
No.
1.	RCC Flower pots box size-14	Rs. 1862.20/-per nos.	200 nos.
	inches x 18 inches x 30 inches
	(Earth filling mix with cowdung
	along with planting of small
	flowerplant)

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

Supply Order No. CPR/INV.Q/SUPPLY.O/62

¶24

Sl.	Item	Offered rateper no.	Qty.
No.
1.	RCC Flower pots box size-14	Rs. 1862.20/-per nos.	300 nos.
	inches x 18 inches x 30 inches (Earth filling mix with cowdung
	along with planting of small
	flowerplant)

¶25

The petitioner claims that he had supplied the required materials as provided in the supply orders but the respondents are not honouring the bills submitted by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted seeking for a direction for disbursement of the contractor’s bill of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 9,31,000/- along with interest as may be applicable.

¶26

The respondents through the Divisional Forest Officer, Guwahati Social Forestry Division have filed an affidavit wherein a stand is being taken as extracted:

¶27

“ Be it stated herein that the committee in its report categorically stated works were executed without obtaining technical sanction from the competent authority. The committee also stated that verification was done almost 1(one) year after execution of works and there were cases of damages and theft of single plating. Therefore, the committee could not ascertain the exact no. of single planting raised. However, the committee assessed the expenditure for each single planting, RCC flower tub and plastic tubs and also ascertained the number of flower tub and plastic tubs on the basis of field verification.”

¶28

As it is a claim for unpaid contractor’s bill, we are also required to examine as to whether there is an admission or denial by the respondents for such claim. The relevant statement of the affidavit-in-opposition as extracted hereinabove makes it discernible that in respect of the claim of the petitioner, a certain

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

committee had looked into the grievance of the petitioner and the committee had submitted a report that the works were executed without obtaining technical sanction from the competent authorities. The said statement makes it discernible that it is not a denial by the respondent authorities on the claim of the petitioner but a refusal to make the payment on the plea that there was no technical sanction from the competent authorities. The further stand in the affidavit is that the verification of the executed work was done after one year. If the petitioner had actually made the supply pursuant to the supply orders and the verification was done by the departmental authorities after one year, it has to be understood that it is more of a laches on the part of the department to make it a reason not to honour the contractor’s bills. The further stand taken is that there were cases of theft of saplings.

¶31

But, however, the core fact remains that the supplies made by the petitioner are not denied by the respondents. All that the stand taken by the respondents indicates that there is no technical sanction and the verification was done after one year and during the one year, there may have been misplacing or theft of the articles that may have been supplied. None of the three stands in the view of the Court would be an acceptable reason which can be construed to be a non-admission by the respondents in the Forest Department of the claim of contractor’s bill of the petitioner.

¶32

In the circumstance, we require the petitioner to make an application to the Principal Chief Conservator providing all the details of the supply orders as well as the supplies that may have been made including any material that may substantiate that the petitioner had actually supplied the items ordered for. The Principal Chief Conservator upon such application being made would give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and allow the petitioner to produce the

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

materials that may substantiate that the supply orders had actually been issued and the supplies were made. If the conclusion arrived at would be that the supply orders were actually issued and the supplies made, orders for payment of all the admitted bill amount be passed by the Principal Chief Conservator. The requirement to pass the order be done within a period of 2(two) months from the date of the application that the petitioner may submit.

¶35

Writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above.

¶36

Comparing Assistant

B.R.G. Enterprise v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.R.G. Enterprise v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tapan Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Tapan Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Tapan Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ansar Uddin Barbhuiya @ Anchar Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Bikash Kumar More Vs the Food Corporation of India and 3 Ors.

Robin Dutta and 3 Ors. Vs the Additional Deputy Commissioner and Anr.