Ramesh. E vs. The District Collector

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be paid the actual value of the vehicle plus a reasonable profit. The third respondent is directed to utilize the vehicle. The fourth respondent (Director of Town Panchayat) is tasked with determining the true value of the vehicle, and they need not strictly adhere to the audit objection. The fourth respondent will conduct an inquiry into the market value of the vehicle and make the payment to the petitioner based on this determination. The petitioner is to be associated with this inquiry. This entire process is to be completed by the fourth respondent within eight weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had acted on the representation of the third respondent and had made the investment and supplied the vehicle, and the delivery was not in dispute. The Court also recognized the need to protect the interest of the revenue.

Facts

The petitioner, E. Ramesh, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to release an invoice bill amount of Rs. 2,99,250.00 for the purchase of a three-wheeler battery vehicle for the Solid Waste Management Scheme implemented by the third respondent. The petitioner was the lowest tenderer, and a work order was issued on April 11, 2022, with an estimated value of Rs. 7,47,900. The petitioner purchased the vehicle for Rs. 2,99,250, which included GST, and delivered it to the third respondent. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, stated that the petitioner's claim could not be accepted due to audit objections, alleging that the value was inflated. The Court noted that the petitioner had acted on the representation of the third respondent, made investments, and supplied the vehicle, and the delivery was not in dispute.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the petitioner the full invoice bill amount of Rs. 2,99,250.00 for the purchased vehicle, considering the audit objections regarding inflated value. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that they acted on the representation of the third respondent, made the necessary investment, and supplied the vehicle as per the work order. The delivery of the vehicle is not in dispute, and they are entitled to the payment as per the invoice. Respondents' Argument: The respondents argued that due to audit objections, the petitioner's claim could not be accepted as the value of the vehicle was allegedly inflated. However, they also acknowledged that the petitioner cannot be blamed and had acted on the third respondent's representation. The interest of the revenue cannot be compromised.