The Tripura High allowed a Writ petition challenging the letter dated 21.01.2022 passed by the Deputy General Manager, MM Division, TSECL vide which penalty was imposed on the petitioner.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner had participated in a tender floated by the respondent corporation in which he was found to be the highest bidder for a bid price of total Rs.8 crores. In terms of the tender requirement, he also deposited the security deposit of Rs.80 lakhs and apart from that, it is claimed that the petitioner has deposited a further sum of Rs.56 lakhs.
The petitioner filed a writ petition [WP(C) No.915 of 2021] in which this Court passed an interim direction to deposit the entire auction value with 4 (four) instalments. The petitioner further informed the Deputy General Manager vide communication dated 03.01.2022 that claiming of TCS @ 5%, as reflected in the letter dated 23.12.2021, was in violation of the initial sale confirmation order dated 14.09.2021 wherein it was categorically given terms to charge TCS Rs.9,44,00,000/- on the whole material value i.e., Rs.8,00,000,00/-.
After payment of the third phase instalment, the petitioner was informed by the authority, vide order dated 21.01.2022, that since the petitioner did not pay the whole amount with effect from 29.09.2021 to 17.12.2021, he is liable to pay 12 weeks total penalty of Rs.88,08,000/-.
Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for Petitioner contended that since the petitioner did not ask for an extension of time beyond the schedule given by the TSECL which is in consonance with the directions of this Court in, the Deputy General Manager, TSECL committed an error in imposing 1% penalty.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the petition contending that since the petitioner has not performed his obligated duty in terms of the agreement of conditions, he is liable for a 1% penalty and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Observation of the Court
The Court observed that the impugned order needs to be set aside on the ground that the same is unilateral and before raising the said demand, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.915 of 2021.
The decision of the Court:
The Tripura High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the Deputy General Manager, MM Division, TSECL.
Case Title: M/S. Sahera Varieties v. State of Tripura & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble The Chief Justice T. Amarnath Goud and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh
Case no.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 92 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. T.D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate, and Mr. Tapash Halam, Advocate.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A. and Mr. N. Majumder, Advocate.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
