Partly allowed

Smart It Services Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Tripura and Anr.

Tripura HC30 Jun 2017WP(C)/715/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to quash an order stopping fee collection and claimed ownership of installed infrastructure. Court directed filing of fresh representation and maintained infrastructure in safe custody pending decision.

What did the court decide?

Ordered filing of fresh representation by 04.07.2017; Joint Transport Commissioner to maintain safe custody of infrastructure pending decision.

Smart It Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No	W.P.(C) No.715 of 2017 Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature
30.06.2	BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Smart IT Services Private Limited ………… Petitioner – Vs – The State of Tripura & Another ………… Respondents For the petitioner:Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, Senior Advocate Mr. P.K. Pal, Advocate For the respondents:Mr. T.D. Majumder, G.A. Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, Advocate B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA 017 Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged this court to quash the order dated 21.06.2017 whereby the petitioner was asked to stop collecting fees from 27.06.2017, so that the printing of smart cards can be completed by 30.06.2017, the day when the agreement with the petitioner comes to an end. It has been further urged that the respondents shall be prohibited from giving effect to the said letter dated 21.06.2017 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition]. The petitioner has, as it appears, as a measure of alternative relief urged this court to allow them take back the assets and the infrastructure cost of which is estimated at Rs.1.10 crores.

Noting by Officer or Serial Date
Advocate No

W.P.(C) No.715 of 2017
Office notes, reports, orders or
Proceedings with signature

30.06.2

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Smart IT Services Private Limited
………… Petitioner
– Vs –
The State of Tripura & Another
………… Respondents
For the petitioner**:Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji,
Senior Advocate
Mr. P.K. Pal, Advocate
For the respondents:**Mr. T.D. Majumder, G.A.
Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji,
Advocate

B E F O R E
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
017
Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, learned
senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Pal, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner.
By means of this petition, the petitioner
has urged this court to quash the order dated
21.06.2017 whereby the petitioner was asked
to stop collecting fees from 27.06.2017, so that
the printing of smart cards can be completed
by 30.06.2017, the day when the agreement
with the petitioner comes to an end. It has
been further urged that the respondents shall
be prohibited from giving effect to the said
letter dated 21.06.2017 [Annexure-2 to the
writ petition]. The petitioner has, as it appears,
as a measure of alternative relief urged this
court to allow them take back the assets and
the infrastructure cost of which is estimated at
Rs.1.10 crores.

¶2

Moumita

¶3

Page 1 of 3

¶4

W.P.(C) No.715 of 2017 Noting by Officer or Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or Advocate No Proceedings with signature Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that since the petitioner could not succeed in the bid and stood the second lowest in terms of the quoted price, their claim is not anyway for continuation or for having the order of printing of the smart cards renewed. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel has again submitted that the relief of the petitioner is confined to the infrastructures they have installed for printing the smart cards in various offices of the Transport Department which according to Mr. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel are shown in the table at Annexure-3. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has only submitted to grant the said alternative relief.

¶5

Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the respondents had paid the value of that infrastructure and as such the petitioner cannot claim ownership or any lien over the said infrastructure for purpose of taking those away from the places of installation.

¶6

Such submission has been strongly countered by Mr. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel who has further contended that never the value was offered to and accepted by the petitioner for transferring the ownership of the infrastructure. The petitioner has already filed a representation on 27.06.2017 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] seeking permission of the respondents to allow them take away the entire infrastructure as reflected in Annexure-3, from the respective Transport Offices. But, no

¶7

Moumita

¶8

Page 2 of 3

¶9

W.P.(C) No.715 of 2017 Noting by Officer or Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or Advocate No Proceedings with signature
decision as yet has been communicated to the petitioner.
Having regard to this very small question that has been raised in this writ petition, by the following direction this writ petition stands disposed of:
The Petitioner by 04.07.2017 shall file a fresh representation giving the details
of the infrastructure installed by them
in various District offices of the
respondents and seeking similar
permission as sought in the
representation dated 27.06.2017. The Joint Transport Commissioner, as there is consensus in the Bar that he is the competent authority to decide the matter, shall pass the necessary order couched with reasons within 7(seven) days from the date of receipt of such
representation. Till then, the Joint
Transport Commissioner shall maintain
the safe custody of the entire
infrastructure so that these are not
operated, manipulated, shifted or otherwise interfered with. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the course of the day. JUDGE

¶10

Moumita

¶11

Page 3 of 3

Smart It Services Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Tripura and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smart It Services Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Tripura and Anr.

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

Bhaskar Dasgupta Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Srabani Das Vs State of Tripura and 3 Ors.

Biswajit Ghosh Vs Kingshuk Ghosh

Parbin Necha Khatun and Ors. Vs Prabir Singha and 7 Ors.

Laxmi Deb Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Gandhasi Bala Jamatia @ Ghandhani Mala Jamatia Vs the DM and Collector, Gomati District and Ors.