Vasantham Agencies vs. The General Manager

Facts

The petitioner, Vasantham Agencies, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), to issue statements of account for four work orders issued between June 2016 and July 2018. The petitioner claimed an arrear amount of Rs. 56,21,023/- for the work undertaken. The primary grievance was the inability to reconcile payments received with the actual work performed due to a lack of detailed payment information from BSNL. The respondents, through the learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel, provided a tabulated statement indicating that the total amount due and payable to the petitioner was Rs. 13,05,072/-. However, this amount was claimed to have been adjusted towards GST, bonus bills, and GST and EPF released but not paid, leaving no amount due to the petitioner.

Held

The Court directed the second respondent, the Assistant General Manager (NWP-CFA) of BSNL, to provide the petitioner with the complete payment details pertaining to the four tenders undertaken by the petitioner within four weeks of receiving the order. The Court explicitly stated that it would not delve into the disputed questions of fact regarding the quantum of the amount claimed by the petitioner. The Court reasoned that since the amount claimed was disputed, it was not appropriate for the High Court in its writ jurisdiction to adjudicate such factual disputes. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue their remedy before the appropriate forum, in accordance with the law, if they were satisfied with the payment details provided and believed they were entitled to any outstanding amount. The Court disposed of the writ petition on these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondents to issue statements of account and settle the arrear amount claimed by the petitioner, considering the dispute over the quantum of dues? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of contract law and the petitioner's right to information). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that they are entitled to receive detailed payment statements to reconcile the amounts paid with the work executed under the four specified work orders. They sought the settlement of the claimed arrear amount of Rs. 56,21,023/-, emphasizing the lack of transparency in payment details. Respondents' Argument: The respondents argued that based on their internal reconciliation, the total amount due to the petitioner was only Rs. 13,05,072/-. They further submitted that this amount had already been adjusted against various charges, including GST and EPF, and therefore, no amount was currently payable to the petitioner. They did not explicitly rely on any specific provisions, circulars, or precedents but presented their financial reconciliation.