Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Ajmani Infrastructure And ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:25277-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 6444 of 2022
-----
M/s. Ajmani Infrastructure and Projects Private Limited, incorporated
under the Companies Act 1956, having its office at Church Road, P.O.
and P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi Jharkhand-834001, through its
Director Mr. Kunal Ajmani, son of Mr. Tilak Raj Ajmani, aged about
40 years, resident of Church Road, P.O. and P.S. Lower Bazar, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Joint Secretary, Planning cum Finance (Audit) Department, having
its office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S. - Dhurwa, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand - 834004.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, having its office at Collectorate
Building, Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj -, District Sahibganj,
Jharkhand-816109.
4. The Additional Collector, Sahibganj, having its office at Collectorate
Building, Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District - Sahibganj,
Jharkhand-816109.
5. The Nazarat Deputy Collector, Sahibganj, having its office at
Collectorate Building, Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District-
Sahibganj, Jharkhand-816109.
6. Dr. Shailesh Kumar Chourasia, Commissioner Power, 220, New
Secreteriate, West Block, Imphal, Manipur-795001.
...Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. M. S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II
Mr. Krishna Murari, Adv
----
18/25/08.2025
Per Deepak Roshan, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for mandamus
directing the respondents to release the admitted dues of the petitioner
amounting to Rs. 8,63,23,117.00 withheld by the respondents even after
2025:JHHC:25277-DB
the petitioner had completed the work allotted to it for visit of Hon'ble the
Prime Minister of India at Sahebganj on 06.04.2017.
Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents
to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount to be refunded
to the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings is that the petitioner
is primarily engaged in the business of Event Management and is also a
government approved contractor in Ranchi providing all the services
associated with the arrangements of Temporary Infrastructure for various
occasions/functions including the programs/ functions organized by the
Government Departments and other convention.
4. The Hon'ble Prime Minister was scheduled to visit Sahebganj on
06.04.2017 and for the purposes of organizing the Program for such visit,
an Event Company had to be outsourced for work of decorations,
barricading, sound, lighting and arrangements for tent and German Hanger.
5. The then Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj issued work order
dated 24.03.2017 vide Memo No. 430, in favour of the petitioner for
organizing the Prime Minister's visit [Annexure-1]. The issuance of work
order was however by nomination.
6. At this stage itself, it is relevant to mention that the petitioner was
not aware, neither concerned with the process before allotment of work in
question. One of the reasons for which the work was allotted to the
petitioner vide Work Order (through nomination) could be that the
petitioner had vast experience in this field and could be trusted for
organizing a large-scale event in the short span of only 12 days as the
Prime Minister was scheduled to visit the said place on 06.04.2017.
7. On 06.04.2017, the petitioner undertook all the activities required
to it with inter alia included installation of German Hanger, building of
main stage, providing of light, sound.
8. In paragraphs-13 and 14 of the writ petition; it has categorically
been submitted that such work organized by the petitioner was to the
satisfaction of all the authorities and no complaint, whatsoever, was
2025:JHHC:25277-DB
received regarding the event management work done by the petitioner. It
may also be noted that since the Programme was organized for visit of
Hon'ble the Prime Minister, strict protocol had to be maintained and it is
only upon satisfaction of Protocol Officers of the Hon'ble Prime Minister
that the event went ahead. After successful completion of the work, the
petitioner submitted its Bill to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj for
the amount of Rs. 8,63,23,117.00. [Annexure-2].
9. Subsequently, since the Bill remained unpaid, petitioner wrote
several reminders to the relevant authorities. However, no response was
received to any such representation. [Annexure-3 Series].
10. It is only on 24.01.2022 that the petitioner was issued a letter by the
office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj referring to all the
representations given by the petitioner and stating that with respect to the
payment to be made to the petitioner, an objection had been made by the
Audit Team of the Planning Commission, Finance Department,
Government of Jharkhand. [Annexure-7]. It is only then; the petitioner
came to know that the payments to be made to the petitioner were stalled
due to such objections.
11. Further, it is also evident that on 10.02.2018, the Deputy
Commissioner, Sahebganj, in reply to the Audit Objections, has stated that
the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, vide letter dated
24.03.2017, had informed the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj that the
necessary arrangements for visit of the Prime Minister on 06.04.2017 had
to be made. Since Sahebganj is a remote district, it would be difficult to
find experienced contractors in the said area for performing such work.
Further, the time span of 11 days was not sufficient to float tender.
Therefore, the work was awarded to the petitioner considering the past
work done by the petitioner for a similar visit of the Hon'ble Prime
Minister in the district of Dumka.
12. It was further stated that the work done by the petitioner and the
rate submitted by it was duly monitored by the Chief Secretary, State of
Jharkhand. The Deputy Commissioner also submitted reconciliation sheet
2025:JHHC:25277-DB
showing the comparison in the rates of the petitioner for the work done in
the district of Dumka and that in the district of Sahebganj. Therefore, the
work given to the petitioner is fully justified. [Annexure-4].
13. Thereafter it appears that review report had also been prepared by
the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj in reply to the Special
Audit Objection No. 87/2017 - 18. This Review Report is in reply to the
objections raised by the Controller of Accounts, Planning Commission,
Finance (Audit) Department, Government of Jharkhand on 18.03.2019
[Annexure-5].
14. The objection taken by the Audit Team was that the work had been
allotted to the petitioner without inviting any tender and hence justification
was being requested from the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj.
15. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj categorically stated that the
work has been successfully completed by the petitioner and payment
should be made to it. Such statement made by the Deputy Commissioner
was in the nature of admission and when the authority, who had allotted the
work itself has admitted that the work was done successfully, withholding
of petitioner's payment cannot be held to be justified.
16. From perusal of Annexure-6, further makes it evident that the
Planning Commission, Finance (Audit) Department, Government of
Jharkhand has not considered the expenses given by the Office of the
Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj and has noted that until compliance, the
comment against the payment to the petitioner would remain intact.
17. Being aggrieved by action of the respondents, petitioner has filed
instant writ petition.
18. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.
3 to 5 i.e., from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj and in
the said counter affidavit, the following admission of the respondents are
relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the present writ petition.
"Para-7 . ... ... ... such order was issued in urgency period
within limited time. Thereafter, the petitioner has complied the work order
and organized all the required items as per work order. ... ... ...
Para-11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that it is true that the writ
petitioner had made several requests to all the State authorities to pay his
admissible dues but the answering respondent has not received any allotment
2025:JHHC:25277-DB
of fund till date in respect of payments of admissible dues to the petitioner,
therefore, the answering respondents are unable to pay dues to the writ
petitioner. The answering respondent was always ready to pay admissible
dues to the writ petitioner after the funds being allotted by the State
authorities to the answering respondents."
19. Therefore, in light of the above admission by the respondents, it is
evident that even the respondents are desirous of making payment to the
petitioner. They also do not dispute that the petitioner had completed the
work satisfactorily.
20. That being the case, there is absolutely no reason as to why the
dues of the petitioner should be withheld.
21. Another counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the
respondent no. 2 i.e., the Planning Commission, Finance (Audit)
Department, Government of Jharkhand. At paragraph-10, Page-7 of the
counter affidavit, the said respondent has categorically submitted that "so
far as payment of bills to the petitioner is concerned, the answering
respondent has no role in any way".
22. However, despite stating as such, the respondent no. 2 has also
stated that as per the relevant financial rules, a tender should have been
issued for allotment of the said work. The allegation was also raised for the
first time that excess amount had been spent for the work in question.
23. In rejoinder, the petitioner has specifically stated that such a reason
was being given for the very first time and in paragraph-12 of the said
rejoinder affidavit, reasons have been given for the price quoted by the
petitioner for the work at Sahebganj. It was further reiterated that the rates
of the petitioner were commensurate with the rates for the work done in
other districts and that the comparison of rates for different districts
without comparing the scope of work demonstrate non-application of mind.
24. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and after
perusing the records of the case, prima facie; it appears that the objection
raised by the respondents regarding maintainability of the present writ
petition is unfounded.
25. It is now well settled that even in contractual matters, the action of
the State must be fair and free from arbitrariness. The Hon'ble Supreme
2025:JHHC:25277-DB
Court in the case of M/s. Unitec Ltd. and others Vs. Telangana State
Industrial Infrastructure Corporation reported in (2021) 16 SCC 35, has
categorically held as under:
39.6. In determining as to whether the jurisdiction should be exercised in a
contractual dispute, the Court must, undoubtedly eschew, disputed questions of fact
which would depend upon an evidentiary determination requiring a trial. But
equally, it is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be ousted
only on the basis that the dispute pertains to the contractual arena. This is for the
simple reason that the State and its instrumentalities are not exempt from the duty
to act fairly merely because in their business dealings they have entered into the
realm of contract. Similarly, the presence of an arbitration clause does (sic not)
oust the jurisdiction under Article 226 in all cases though, it still needs to be
decided from case to case as to whether recourse to a public law remedy can
justifiably be invoked.
26. Further, in the case of M.P. Power Management Company Ltd.
Vs. Sky Power, South East Solar India Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2023) 2 SCC
703, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given an instance where a writ petition
would lie even in contractual matters. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically stated that the writ petitions can be filed seeking payment of
dues from the State. The relevant part of the Judgment is quoted hereunder:
82.5. After the contract is entered into, there can be a variety of circumstances,
which may provide a cause of action to a party to the contract with the State, to
seek relief by filing a writ petition.
82.6. Without intending to be exhaustive, it may include the relief of seeking
payment of amounts due to the aggrieved party from the State. The State can,
indeed, be called upon to honour its obligations of making payment, unless it be
that there is a serious and genuine dispute raised relating to the liability of the State
to make the payment.
27. On the maintainability of the present writ petition, reference can
also be made to the recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation Vs. Tehsildar and others
reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 447, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:
48. Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by
a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
But the mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away
the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. In
a case where the Court is satisfied, like the one on hand, that the facts are disputed
by the State merely to create a ground for the rejection of the writ petition on the
ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the duty of the writ court to reject such
contention and to investigate the disputed facts and record its finding if the
2025:JHHC:25277-DB
particular facts of the case, like the one at hand, was required in the interest of
justice.
49. There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to indicate that the High
Court in the proceedings, like the one on hand, is debarred from holding such an
inquiry. The proposition that a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply
on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question
of fact is not warranted by any provisions of law nor by any decision of this Court.
A rigid application of such proposition or to treat such proposition as an inflexible
rule of law or of discretion will necessarily make the provisions of Article 226
wholly illusory and ineffective more particularly Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the
Act, 1976 respectively. Obviously, the High Court must avoid such consequences.
28. Therefore, in light of the above, we are of the considered opinion
that the present writ petition for payment of admissible dues is certainly
maintainable. When the authority who had allotted the work, had itself
admitted that the work was duly satisfactorily completed by the petitioner
and thus payment should be made to it. The State cannot now in the guise
of non-existent question of fact, deny to make payment to the petitioner.
29. As referred to hereinabove, the respondent no. 3 in its counter
affidavit has categorically stated that the payments are not being made to
the petitioner due to want of allotment of funds from the State authorities.
30. Such a situation has specifically been taken care of by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of Surya Construction
Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2019) 16 SCC 794. It is profitable to quote
para-2 and 3 of the said Judgment which reads as under:
2. By an order dated 21-10-2013 [Surya Construction v. State of U.P., 2013 SCC
OnLine All 14604] , the High Court asked the appellant to make a representation
and finally, in a contempt petition moved on 7-2-2014, directed [Surya
Construction v. Rajendra Kumar, 2014 SCC OnLine All 16549] Uttar Pradesh Jal
Nigam to answer this representation. The representation so made was answered by
Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam as follows:
"Due to aforesaid facts and description it is clear that Rs 113.29
lakhs has to be released by Government/Mela Administration
against the Budget presented by U.P. Jal Nigam, Magh Mela
2008 of 2009. There is no money available under account of
Magh Mela 2008 of 2009 of U.P. Jal Nigam. And could not
obtain the rest of amount from the Mela
Administration/Government. Therefore, payment regarding M/s
Surya Construction, 323/3, Alopibagh, Allahabad will be paid
after availability of the money from the Government."
3. It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22-3-2014 that there is no
dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the
appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil
No. 25216 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated 2-5-2014 [Surya
Construction v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 6071] dismissed the writ
petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises
2025:JHHC:25277-DB
out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as
there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the
appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State
behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (ABL International Ltd. v. Export
Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. [ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit
Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553] )
Emphasis Supplied
31. So far as the objection taken by the Audit is concerned, it is mainly
premised on the ground that no tender for the work had been floated. In
this regard, we are of the considered view that it is not the petitioner's
concern as to how the work was allotted to it. The petitioner is in no
manner responsible for floating or non-floating of the tender. Once it has
been issued the work order, it is duty bound to complete the same, that too
when it's the program of Hon'ble the Prime Minister. It is arbitrary act on
part of the respondents to get the work completed by the petitioner and
then deny to make payment on flimsy grounds.
32. As stated hereinabove, when action of the State in contractual
matters is arbitrary, the writ petition would certainly lie.
33. A similar objection had been dealt with by this Court in the case of
Setu Printers Vs. State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No. 118 of 2011, order
dated 06.09.2011. In paragraph-3 of the said Judgment, this Court has
noted that an objection was raised by the Finance Department that the work
order had been given contrary to the Resolution by the Department
whereunder for any item value above Rs.50,000/-, tender ought to have
been issued. It was further alleged that the procedure of giving contract was
not followed by the respondent-Department.
In this regard, this High Court has very clearly held that violation
of procedure cannot be a ground for the respondents to take double benefits
of retaining the goods of the petitioner as well as consideration of the
goods. This Court, thereafter, in paragraph-11, had directed the respondents
to pay the admitted amount along with interest. The relevant portions of the
judgment in Setu Printers (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow -
3. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was given the contract to supply
certain articles by the respondents, for which a bill of Rs. 64,74,761/- was
submitted by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner supplied the goods, which
were retained and used, but when the cost of the above goods was demanded by
2025:JHHC:25277-DB
the writ petitioner-appellant, it was refused by the respondents on the ground
that the work order was given contrary to the rules/instructions contained in
Resolution No. 5703 dated 1.10.2002 issued by the Finance Department,
whereunder for any item of value above Rs. 50,000/-, tender should have been
issued in the newspapers. This fact is not in dispute that no such tender was
issued but the contract was given to the writ petitioner and the petitioner supplied
the goods and the goods were not only accepted but also were utilised by the
respondents. Therefore, the question for consideration before this Court is only
that whether the respondents can retain the goods of the value of Rs. 64,74,761/-
and at the same time deny the payment of the cost of goods on the ground that the
procedure for giving the contract was not followed by the persons and officers of
the respondents' department.
4. ... In this case, as we have already noticed that the facts are not in dispute and
this fact shows that the petitioner was given the supply order of goods of Rs.
64,74,761/- and there is no dispute with respect to the quality of the goods as well
as value of the goods. However, the procedure was not followed in giving the
contract to the writ petitioner and that was that before giving the work contract
the department should have invited the tender. This fact is also not in
dispute. Therefore, the petitioner's case stands on a better footing than that
of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. (Supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that merely because some disputed question of fact arises, on that ground the writ
jurisdiction cannot be denied to the writ petitioner. The question only survives is
that whether the respondents by taking help of this violation of procedure initially
violated by their own employees and officers, can retain the goods without any
consideration payment to the supplier? The procedure to purchase goods is
prescribed, obviously, for the purpose of getting goods at a fair price from open
market with an object to give an opportunity to all persons to compete as the
Government contracts cannot be given by choice and by method of choose and
pick up. In this case when it is not in dispute that the actual market value of the
goods supplied by the writ petitioner is the same as claimed by the writ petitioner,
in that situation the respondents cannot deny the payment of value of the goods
received and used by them and there is no ground, other than violation of
procedure. This cannot be basis for respondents to take double benefit of
retaining goods of the petitioner as well as the consideration of the goods. If this
is permitted then the principle of unlawful enrichment applies against the
respondents who by entering into an illegal contract will take benefit of the gods
without there being any consideration. We failed to understand as to how such a
plea has been taken by the respondents in the facts of this case when they cannot
justify that they have right to retain the goods of Rs.64,74,761/- merely on the
ground of not following the procedure by their own officers.
7. In a case where the contract is of a private nature with the Government and the
facts are not in dispute, in that situation asking the parties to go to Civil Court
and burden the Civil Court with the litigations, which could be decided without
evidence in view of the undisputed or admitted facts, will be unnecessarily
burdening the Courts and particularly when the parties have approached the
Court and when the learned Single Judge held that in the fact situation, the writ
petition could not have been rejected in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. (Supra), we do not find any
justification now to send the parties to Civil Court in view of the facts of this case.
Emphasis Supplied
34. In the case of Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of Bihar reported
in (2006) 4 PLJR 622, the Patna High Court has clearly held that the
contractor is not involved or in contrary of the fact that a tender has not been
called for and payment cannot be denied to such contractors for fault
committed by the department's officials. The relevant part of the Judgment is
being reproduced for ready reference:
2025:JHHC:25277-DB
4. In the first counter-affidavit it was disclosed that after the. Writ Application was
filed, the matter was referred to the Liability Committee of the Road Construction
Department constituted by the government to consider the pending matters. It
appears that the Liability Committee examined the matter and rejected the total
claim of the Petitioner. Pursuant thereto by Office Order dated 11th November,
2005, the Joint Secretary in the Department of Road Construction Department held
that the claim was not entertainable. There were three grounds to reject the
Petitioner's claim firstly that the publicity for notice inviting tender was inadequate
and did not increase the competitive bidding, which was in violation of circular of
the government, ... To my mind, what is being said is that because government
officials failed to discharge their duties in the manner in which they are required to
do by government circular the Petitioner who done the work for the government
under a duly executed agreement is not liable to get any payment for the work
done. In other words, the Respondent-State wants to benefit and take advantage of
default committed by its officers to the detriment of the citizen like the Petitioner.
To my mind this cannot be continued in a civilized society, muchless, under
constitutional set up.
8. In matter of contact it is a settled principle of law that no service is gratuitous.
Admittedly the Petitioner had done the work for public i.e. State. State having
taken the work cannot take the plea of depriving the Petitioner of the payment for
the works done, more so, merely because of some fault committed by their officials.
All the three grounds given for denying the payment do not relate to any action of
which the Petitioner should be said to be responsible. Petitioner is thus liable to be
compensated and the stand taken by the State to deny the payment is clearly
unsustainable and arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The reasons given are mere pretence of excuse to deny legitimate payment.
35. The above Judgments are based on the settled principles of law that
the State cannot take advantage of their own wrong. [See State of Orissa Vs.
Mangalam Timber Product Ltd. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 139].
36. Even otherwise, no adverse impact can be drawn on the fact that a
tender was not floated in the present case, and the work was awarded by
nomination. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj has already justified that a
tender cannot be floated due to the emergent nature of work and the
experience required.
37. In this regard the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 5 M & T
Consultants v. S.Y. Nawab, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 100, has held as under:
".......... it is by now well settled that non-floating of tenders or
absence of public auction or invitation alone is not sufficient
reason to castigate move or an action of a public authority has
either arbitrary or unreasonable or amounting to malafide or
improper experience or improper use of power by the authority
concerned.
38. In fact, in a Constitution Bench Judgment i.e. State of W.B. v. B.K.
Mondal and Sons, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 76, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under:
20. It is well known that in the functioning of the vast organisation represented
by a modern State government officers have invariably to enter into a variety of
2025:JHHC:25277-DB
contracts which are often of a petty nature. Sometimes they may have to act in
emergency, and on many occasions, in the pursuit of the welfare policy of the
State government officers may have to enter into contract orally or through
correspondence without strictly complying with the provisions of Section
175(3) of the Act. If, in all these cases, what is done in pursuance of the
contracts is for the benefit of the Government and for their use and enjoyment
and is otherwise legitimate and proper Section 70 would step in and support a
claim for compensation made by the contracting parties notwithstanding the
fact that the contract had not been made as required by Section 175(3).
39. Having regards to the aforesaid rulings, we hold that the reasons
allotted by the Finance Department for non-payment of work done by the
petitioner is not tenable and as such the writ petition is fit to be allowed.
40. Interestingly, this is a case where the two Departments of the
Government of Jharkhand are at logger heads. The respondent no. 2 is
objecting to the payment; whereas the authorities that placed the work order
to the petitioner i.e. respondent no. 3, is in favour of making payment to the
petitioner.
41. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the
State Government cannot speak two voices. What is given by the right hand,
cannot be taken by the left hand. Reference is made to the Judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Warehousing Corpn. v.
Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 110, relevant
part of which is being reproduced hereinbelow:
57. We are of the considered view that it does not augur well for the Union of India
to speak in two contradictory voices. The two departments of the Union of India
cannot be permitted to take stands which are diagonally opposite. We may
gainfully refer to the following observations made by a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Lloyd Electric & Engg. Ltd. v. State of H.P. [Lloyd Electric & Engg.
Ltd. v. State of H.P., (2016) 1 SCC 560] : (SCC p. 564, para 14)
"14. The State Government cannot speak in two voices. Once
the Cabinet takes a policy decision to extend its 2004 Industrial
Policy in the matter of CST concession to the eligible units
beyond 31-3-2009, up to 31-3-2013, and the Notification dated
29-5-2009, accordingly, having been issued by the Department
concerned viz. Department of Industries, thereafter, the Excise
and Taxation Department cannot take a different stand. What is
given by the right hand cannot be taken by the left hand. The
Government shall speak only in one voice. It has only one
policy. The departments are to implement the government
policy and not their own policy."
42. Viewed thus, we hold that in the present case, the respondents have
failed to act in a fair manner. Therefore, actions in not making payment to
the petitioner despite admission by their own officers, is completely
2025:JHHC:25277-DB
arbitrary. Against such arbitrary action, the writ petition is maintainable as
the State cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong.
43. We further hold that the Petitioner is entitled for the contracted
amount and it is also entitled to interest on the amount to be paid to it as it
was deprived to use such money for a considerable period of time. It has
been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that interest is to be paid
as a measure of recompense for the time a person was deprived of its
money. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Poornima Advani v. State
(NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 419 has held as under -
17. Thus, when a person is deprived of the use of his money to which he is
legitimately entitled, he has a right to be compensated for the deprivation which
may be called interest or compensation. Interest is paid for the deprivation of
the use of money in general terms which has returned or compensation for the
use or retention by a person of a sum of money belonging to other.
44. Having regard to the abovementioned facts and circumstances and
the discussions made hereinabove, the present writ petition deserves to be,
and, is hereby, allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the dues
i.e., Rs.8,63,23,117.00 with interest @6% p.a. from the date of completion
of work till the date of payment within a period of ten weeks from the date
of receipt/production of copy of this order.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
AFR/
