City Steels vs. The State Of Assam And 6 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the respondents' contentions regarding lack of technical sanction, delayed verification, and potential theft/damage of supplies do not constitute a denial of the petitioner's claim for the contractor's bills. The Court found that the core fact remains that the supplies made by the petitioner were not denied by the respondents. The Court reasoned that the respondents' stance indicated a refusal to pay based on procedural issues rather than a dispute over the fact of supply. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to make an application to the Principal Chief Conservator, providing all details of supply orders and made supplies, along with substantiating material. The Principal Chief Conservator is to grant a hearing, allow the petitioner to produce evidence, 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, City Steels, was issued supply orders by the Range Forest Officer, Sonapur Social Forestry Division, for various materials including tub-raised plants, plastic mesh wire, and binding GI wire. The total value of the petitioner's claim for these supplies is Rs. 48,61,246/-. The petitioner claims to have supplied the materials but the respondents have not honored the bills. The respondents, through an affidavit by the Divisional Forest Officer, stated that a committee report indicated works were executed without technical sanction and verification was done almost a year after execution, leading to difficulties in ascertaining exact quantities due to damages and theft. However, the respondents did not deny the supplies themselves.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' refusal to honor the petitioner's contractor's bills, citing lack of technical sanction and delayed verification, constitutes a denial of the supplies made by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the supplies were made as per the supply orders and the respondents' reasons for non-payment, such as lack of technical sanction and delayed verification, do not amount to a denial of the actual supplies. The petitioner sought a direction for disbursement of the contractor's bill along with applicable interest. 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 during this period, there were cases of damages and theft, making it difficult to ascertain the exact quantities supplied. They claimed the committee assessed the expenditure based on field verification.