Shri Laxmi Stores vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Laxmi Stores, represented by its proprietor Satish Kumar Agrawal, filed a writ petition seeking payment for laboratory equipment, lab apparatus, and plastic-ware supplied to Eklavya Vidyalaya, Dharamjagarh, District Raigarh. The supply order was issued by respondent No. 3, Assistant Commissioner (Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department), Raigarh. The total value of the supplied goods is Rs. 2,39,699.36 plus 18% GST. The petitioner claims to have supplied the items to the satisfaction of the authorities and raised bills for payment. Despite oral requests and written representations submitted on September 11, 2024, to respondent No. 3, no payment has been made. The petitioner seeks immediate clearance of the admissible amount, interest on delayed payment, and compensation from the erring officer.

Held

The Court, without commenting on the merits of the petitioner's claim, considered the facts and circumstances, including the petitioner's submission that the laboratory items were supplied in March 2023 and payment was to be disbursed within 20 days of receipt of articles. The Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2, who also holds the ex-officio post of Mission Director, Samagra Shiksha. The concerned authorities are directed to consider and decide such representation expeditiously, preferably within 45 days from the date of receipt, and thereafter disburse the undisputed claim raised by the petitioner. The Court did not make any specific findings on the entitlement to interest or compensation, leaving those aspects to be decided during the consideration of the representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment of Rs. 2,39,699.36 plus 18% GST for the laboratory items supplied to Eklavya Vidyalaya, Dharamjagarh, District Raigarh, as per the supply order issued by respondent No. 3. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of the undisputed claim, as per the terms and conditions of the rate contract, which stipulates payment immediately after supply. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation from the erring officer for the delay in payment. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they have fulfilled their contractual obligation by supplying the laboratory items to the satisfaction of the authority. They argued that payment was due immediately after supply as per the rate contract and that despite several representations, the payment has not been made, entitling them to interest and compensation. State's arguments: The State submitted that the petitioner's claim for disbursement, if still pending, will be considered in accordance with law. Respondent No. 4's arguments: Respondent No. 4 stated that the petitioner's grievance is against respondents No. 2 and 3.