Bhupinder Paul Mahajan vs. State Of Hp And Ors

Held

The Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to take necessary action in terms of the recommendations made by the Empowered Standing Committee in its meeting held on November 23, 2019. This action was to be completed expeditiously, preferably within six weeks. The Court emphasized that the concerned authorities must afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order. The petitioner was also granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings if he remained aggrieved. The Court did not explicitly address the issue of supplement agreements or the immediate payment of 50% GST, implicitly deferring these to the final decision on the claims. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must comply with their own committee's directions and statutory guidelines within a reasonable timeframe, and failure to do so can be remedied by the High Court through a writ of mandamus.

Facts

The petitioner, Bhupinder Paul Mahajan, a government contractor, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the respondents to decide his claims for payment on account of Goods and Services Tax (GST) for 14 work contracts. These claims were to be processed in accordance with the 'NRIDA Guidelines of 2018' and based on directions from an Empowered Standing Committee. The petitioner also sought supplement agreements to revise contract values and immediate payment of at least 50% of the GST paid by him to alleviate financial hardship. The Empowered Standing Committee had, on November 23, 2019, directed the petitioner to submit work-wise GST claims and instructed Executive Engineers to finalize these claims as per Ministry of Rural Development guidelines within 15 days, with an action-taken report to follow. However, over two and a half years later, no action had been taken.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to decide the petitioner's claims for payment on account of GST in accordance with the 'NRIDA Guidelines of 2018' and the directions of the Empowered Standing Committee, and make the due payments within a specified period? 2. Whether the respondents are required to enter into supplement agreements to revise the values of the work contracts to accommodate the GST claims? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to immediate payment of at least 50% of the GST paid by him pending final decision? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents have failed to act on the directions of the Empowered Standing Committee, which had mandated the processing of GST claims as per specific guidelines. He sought enforcement of these directions and immediate financial relief due to hardship. Respondents' Arguments: The Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondents stated that while he presumed necessary steps had been taken, if not, they would be positively taken within six weeks.