Md Shahnwaj Akhtar vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's bill for Rs. 5,18,522/- was submitted after the work was completed. While the petitioner's grievance was initially about the refusal to disburse the full amount, it was submitted by the Administrator, Gumla Nagar Parishad, that an amount of Rs. 4,55,880/- was paid on September 6, 2024, after deducting GST and other taxable elements. The petitioner confirmed receipt of this amount but still had a grievance regarding the non-payment of the security amount. The Administrator assured the Court that the security amount would be released within two weeks. The Court directed that the said security amount be paid within two weeks. The writ petition was disposed of based on these developments.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Shahnwaj Akhtar, proprietor of M/s Lucky Construction, was awarded a contract by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Gumla (Respondent No. 4) for the installation of 220 SS Dustbins in 2022-23. After completing the work, the petitioner submitted a bill for Rs. 5,18,522/-. Despite repeated representations over two years, payment was not disbursed. A committee constituted later found only 74 dustbins installed. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the refusal to disburse the payment. During the proceedings, it was submitted that the amount, after deducting GST and other taxable elements to the tune of Rs. 4,55,880/-, was paid on September 6, 2024. The petitioner's remaining grievance was the non-payment of the security amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Gumla, was justified in refusing to disburse the full payment of Rs. 5,18,522/- to the petitioner for the installation of SS Dustbins, considering the delay in payment and the subsequent committee report finding fewer dustbins than contracted? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning contractual obligations and administrative action). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the work was completed within the stipulated time, and the bill was submitted immediately thereafter. The delay in payment and the subsequent formation of a committee after two years, which found a discrepancy in the number of dustbins, should not prejudice his claim for the full payment. The petitioner relied on the initial allotment and agreement. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through the Administrator, submitted that the amount was paid after deducting GST and other taxable elements. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents regarding the justification for the initial refusal or the discrepancy in the number of dustbins, other than the deduction of GST and taxable elements.