M/S. J.B. Enterprise vs. The State Of Assam And 5 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the respondents' stated reasons do not constitute an acceptable basis for non-admission of the petitioner's claim. The lack of technical sanction, the delay in verification by the department after one year, and the mention of theft of saplings (which were not the subject of the supply orders) were not valid grounds to refuse payment. The Court found that the core fact of supplies made by the petitioner was not denied by the respondents. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to make an application to the Principal Chief Conservator, providing all details of supply orders and supplies made. The Principal Chief Conservator is to grant a hearing, allow the petitioner to produce substantiating material, and if satisfied that supplies were made, pass orders for payment of the admitted bill amount within two months of the application.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s J.B. Enterprise, filed a writ petition seeking disbursement of contractor's bills amounting to Rs. 21,87,357/- along with applicable interest. The petitioner had received supply orders dated 10.07.2017 from the Range Forest Officer, Sonapur Social Forestry Division, for plastic mesh wire and binding G.I. wire. The respondents, authorities under the Forest Department and Finance Department of the Government of Assam, filed an affidavit stating that the works were executed without technical sanction, verification was done almost a year after execution, and there were cases of damages and theft. The petitioner contended that these reasons were not a denial of the claim but a refusal to pay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' stated reasons, namely lack of technical sanction, delayed verification, and alleged theft/damage of supplies, constitute a valid denial of the petitioner's claim for contractor's bills under the relevant contractual provisions and principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents' averments do not amount to a denial of the supplies made. They contended that the delay in verification by the department after one year constitutes laches on their part. Furthermore, the respondents' mention of theft of saplings indicated a misdirection from the actual claim, which was for materials like plastic mesh wire and G.I. wire, not saplings. The petitioner relied on the principle that the core fact of supplies made is not denied. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the works were executed without obtaining technical sanction from the competent authority. They also stated that verification was done almost one year after execution, and due to damages and theft, the exact number of single plantings could not be ascertained. They assessed expenditure based on field verification.