Tech Business INDIA PVT. LTD. And Anr vs. The State Of Assam And 2 Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Tech Business India Pvt. Ltd., is a supplier of agricultural inputs. It participated in an e-tender floated by the Director of Agriculture, Government of Assam, for the supply of Plant Protection Chemicals & Materials. The petitioner emerged as the successful bidder (L-1) and received an Indent for Supply for three items at specified quantities and rates. The petitioner submitted a Tax Invoice dated 17.08.2020 for an amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. Despite repeated representations, the respondent authorities in the Agriculture Department have not disbursed this amount. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the disbursement of the outstanding dues.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had completed the initial stages as a supplier, including submitting the invoice and acknowledging receipt of goods. However, subsequent steps, particularly those requiring action from the respondent authorities as the purchaser, were allegedly not being completed diligently. The Court found a broad consensus between the parties regarding the need for examination of the claim. Therefore, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the Court directed the respondent authorities, specifically the Director of Agriculture (respondent no. 3), to examine the petitioner's claim for Rs. 1,80,00,000/- against official records and in terms of Clause 9 of the GCC. If, after examination, it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the amount or any part thereof, the necessary steps for disbursement shall be taken. The entire process is to be completed within four months from the date of submission of a certified copy of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities have failed to fulfill their obligations under the Payment Clause of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) of the Bidding Document, leading to the non-disbursement of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- to the petitioner? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Clause 9 of the GCC). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner has completed its obligations as per the Payment Clause, but the respondent authorities have not completed their part, causing undue delay in payment. The petitioner relies on the Payment Clause (Clause 9) of the GCC. Respondent's contention: The respondent authorities acknowledge that if actions required by the purchaser are not completed, they can be completed within a reasonable period. They do not dispute the petitioner's claim of having completed its part but highlight the need for the purchaser's actions.