M/s K.G.B Enterprises Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Represented by the Secretary, Department of Elementary Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : of Elementary Education Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar.

¶10

3:The Deputy Director Age: 0 Occupation : of School Education West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Aalo. 4:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Food and Civil Supply Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : Tony Pertin, Mingkong Pertin

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Taba Tagum,Tagum Jamoh,SC (Education)

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 05.02.2026

¶17

Heard Shri T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department as well as Ms. P. Pangu, learned State Counsel, who has informed that the concerned respondent No. 4, namely, the Director, Food & Civil Supply, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has a Standing Counsel. This Court has also noticed that although the name of the Standing Counsel is reflected in the cause-list, there is no representation.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances involved, and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶19

As per the facts projected, the petitioner’s firm was appointed as the carriage contractor for lifting and transportation of food grains from the FCI Depot, Dhemaji to various destinations in the West Siang District for the period 2005–2006. In that regard, a Deed of Agreement was also executed between the parties. The petitioner had also transported rice for sustaining the Mid-day Meal Scheme. The aforesaid scheme was, however, handed over to the Department of Elementary Education in a meeting held on 21.06.2006. The petitioner claims to have successfully completed the job, for which a bill of Rs. 33,68,036/- (Rupees Thirty-Three Lakh Sixty-Eight Thousand and Thirty-Six only). was raised. The said bill, however, was not paid, though the petitioner claims the same to be an admitted one.

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

Shri Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the work was completed successfully in all respects, and that non-payment of the bill in question amounts to illegality and is also unreasonable.

¶22

Shri Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 15.07.2024, has, however, submitted that the work was done for the Food & Civil Supply Department, namely respondent No. 4. He has also submitted that, in any event, it is the Central Government which is responsible for any payment. He has further pointed out that in the affidavit the amount claimed has not been admitted, and the admitted constitutes Rs.5,86,070/- (Rupees Five Lakh Eighty-Six Thousand and Seventy only).

¶23

Ms. Pangu, learned State Counsel, who has earlier appeared for the respondent No.4 that the respondent No.4 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 29.05.2024, where only the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,86,070/- (Rupees Five Lakh Eighty-Six Thousand and Seventy only) has been admitted.

¶24

Shri Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even the admitted amount has not been released till now.

¶25

A writ Court, while entertaining an application for release of a contractual amount, would pass an appropriate order only when such amount is admitted, as a writ Court is not a Court of facts. Moreover, in the present case, there is no admission of the entire amount claimed. However, in view of the admission that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.5,86,070/- (Rupees Five Lakh Eighty-Six Thousand and Seventy only), as stated in the affidavit, this Court directs the concerned Department to arrange for the funds from the Central Government and ensure that the same is released to the petitioner expeditiously and

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

preferably within a period of 90 (ninety) days from today.

¶28

As regards the balance amount, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of its grievance. If such a recourse is taken, the petitioner would be at liberty to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if so available.

¶29

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

M/s K.G.B Enterprises v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s K.G.B Enterprises v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Capital Agro Forestry Nursery Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Taro Param, Gpc and 5 Ors. Vs The Deputy Commissioner and 17 Ors.

Tapa alias Kiapa Maki Vs The Deputy Commissioner and 3 Ors.

Dasanglu Pul Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Techi Menia Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Dr.(Mrs) Tassar Pana and 11 Ors. Vs The Union of India and Anr.