Gauhati High Court
B.R.G. Enterprise vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 3 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010110632020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3248/2020
B.R.G. ENTERPRISE
REP. BY BISWAJIT DAS
NOONMATI TINIALI
LOKHRA ROAD
GUWAHATI-781040
K (M)
ASSAM. CONT. NO.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REP. THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY.-06
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
2:THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (CSASFC)
CENTRAL SOUTHERN ASSAM SOCIAL FORESTRY CIRCLE
BASISTHA
GUWAHATI-29.
3:THE DY. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
BASISTHA
GUWAHATI-29.
4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (DFO)
GUWAHATI SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
BASISTHA
GHY.-29.
5:THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
CITY PLANTATION RANGE
BASISTHA
GHY.-29.
Page No.# 2/5
6:FINANCE DEPTT.
OF THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR. R C DAS
Advocate for : SC
FOREST appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Date : 03-11-2022
Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.R.
Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6, being the authorities
under the Forest Department of the Government of Assam. Also heard Mr. R.
Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, being the authorities under
the Finance Department of the Government of Assam.
2. The petitioner M/s BRG Enterprise was issued supply orders all dated
10.07.2017 by the Range Forest Officer, Sonapur Social Forestry Division for the
supply of the following:
Supply Order No. CPR/INV.Q/SUPPLY.O/62
Sl. Item Offered rate per no. Qty.
No.
1. RCC Flower pots box size-14 Rs. 1862.20/- per nos. 200 nos.
inches x 18 inches x 30 inches
(Earth filling mix with cowdung
along with planting of small
flower plant)
Page No.# 3/5
Supply Order No. CPR/INV.Q/SUPPLY.O/62
Sl. Item Offered rate per no. Qty.
No.
1. RCC Flower pots box size-14 Rs. 1862.20/- per nos. 300 nos.
inches x 18 inches x 30 inches
(Earth filling mix with cowdung
along with planting of small
flower plant)
3. The petitioner claims that he had supplied the required materials as
provided in the supply orders but the respondents are not honouring the bills
submitted by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted
seeking for a direction for disbursement of the contractor's bill of the petitioner
amounting to Rs. 9,31,000/- along with interest as may be applicable.
4. The respondents through the Divisional Forest Officer, Guwahati Social
Forestry Division have filed an affidavit wherein a stand is being taken as
extracted:
" Be it stated herein that the committee in its report categorically stated works were
executed without obtaining technical sanction from the competent authority. The
committee also stated that verification was done almost 1(one) year after execution
of works and there were cases of damages and theft of single plating. Therefore, the
committee could not ascertain the exact no. of single planting raised. However, the
committee assessed the expenditure for each single planting, RCC flower tub and
plastic tubs and also ascertained the number of flower tub and plastic tubs on the
basis of field verification."
5. As it is a claim for unpaid contractor's bill, we are also required to examine
as to whether there is an admission or denial by the respondents for such claim.
The relevant statement of the affidavit-in-opposition as extracted hereinabove
makes it discernible that in respect of the claim of the petitioner, a certain
Page No.# 4/5
committee had looked into the grievance of the petitioner and the committee
had submitted a report that the works were executed without obtaining
technical sanction from the competent authorities. The said statement makes it
discernible that it is not a denial by the respondent authorities on the claim of
the petitioner but a refusal to make the payment on the plea that there was no
technical sanction from the competent authorities. The further stand in the
affidavit is that the verification of the executed work was done after one year. If
the petitioner had actually made the supply pursuant to the supply orders and
the verification was done by the departmental authorities after one year, it has
to be understood that it is more of a laches on the part of the department to
make it a reason not to honour the contractor's bills. The further stand taken is
that there were cases of theft of saplings.
6. But, however, the core fact remains that the supplies made by the
petitioner are not denied by the respondents. All that the stand taken by the
respondents indicates that there is no technical sanction and the verification
was done after one year and during the one year, there may have been
misplacing or theft of the articles that may have been supplied. None of the
three stands in the view of the Court would be an acceptable reason which can
be construed to be a non-admission by the respondents in the Forest
Department of the claim of contractor's bill of the petitioner.
7. In the circumstance, we require the petitioner to make an application to
the Principal Chief Conservator providing all the details of the supply orders as
well as the supplies that may have been made including any material that may
substantiate that the petitioner had actually supplied the items ordered for. The
Principal Chief Conservator upon such application being made would give the
petitioner an opportunity of hearing and allow the petitioner to produce the
Page No.# 5/5
materials that may substantiate that the supply orders had actually been issued
and the supplies were made. If the conclusion arrived at would be that the
supply orders were actually issued and the supplies made, orders for payment
of all the admitted bill amount be passed by the Principal Chief Conservator. The
requirement to pass the order be done within a period of 2(two) months from
the date of the application that the petitioner may submit.
Writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
