Surajit Saha vs T.S.E.C.L & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 34 Tri

                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA

                                WP(C) 560 of 2020

Surajit Saha                                     ...................Petitioner(s)
                                       Vs.
T.S.E.C.L & Ors                                   ................Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s)            :       Mr. P. Datta, Adv.

For Respondent(s)           :       Mr. N. Majumder, Adv.


                                    BEFORE

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

                          Judgment & Order(Oral)

07/01/2021
[Per S.Talapatra, J]

[1]            Heard Mr.P.Datta, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.

Also heard Mr. N.Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

[2] Briefly stated the facts that is relevant in perspective is that the respondent invited a tender for construction of a new RCC Frame SCADA/DMS Building at 79 Tilla Office complex, Agartala for Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (TSECL in short). The petitioner was the successful bidder and he had entered into an agreement vide No. 18/ AGM (DP&C) / DGM/ CCD / 2014-2015 on 17.11.2014. In terms thereof, the petitioner had completed the said work to the full satisfaction of the respondents on 12.05.2016. All formalities for finalizing the transaction was complete. From 12.05.2016 the respondents had started

functioning from the said building. The respondents prepared the final bill but could not release the balance payment for the value of the work executed to the extent of Rs.27,75,810/- and also did not release the security deposit to the extent of Rs.18,78,000/-, in total Rs.46,53,810/- . The petitioner reminded the respondents of their obligations to make the payment and the release of the said security deposit etc, by the letters, on 13.09.2019 and 11.11.2020. In response to the letters given by the petitioner the respondent No.3 had issued a letter to the petitioner apprising the amount to be paid to him i.e. Rs.27,75,810/- as the balance amount of the final bill. They had also stated that they would release the security deposit. Thus, the petitioner was, indisputably, entitled to get the payment of Rs.46,53,810/-. But till the date of filing of the Writ Petition i.e. 02.09.2020, the payment was not made. As the payment due to him was not made, the petitioner approached this court for direction on the respondents to pay him the admitted amount.

[3] Mr.P.Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred the communication dated 25.11.2019 [Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition] where the respondent through their Addl. General Manager (DP &C) had informed the petitioner that they would release the outstanding due and requested the petitioner to bear with them for some times. For that purpose, the entire text of the said letter dated 25.11.2019 is extracted below:

No.F.10(03).Misc. TSECL Corp. Office/19-20/39887-90 Dated 25/11/2019 To, Sri Surajit Saha, Govt. Contractor Agartala Sub: Regarding settlement of dispute for the work "Construction of new RCC framed SCADA/DMS building at 79 Tilla office complex Agartala (TSECL)"

Ref:-(i) Agreement no 18/AGM(DP&C)/DGM/CCD/2014-15 Dt.07/11/2014

(ii)Your letter no.NIL Dt.11/11/2019 Dear sir,

Please refer to above. In this respect this is to inform you that bill for the work mentioned above amounting to Rs.27,75,810.00 was already processed from Division Office to the Finance wing of TSECL and is under consideration of the authority.

You are therefore, requested to please wait for some days for release of payment. Earnest Money Deposit & Security Deposit would be released after finalization of bill. In this respect this is also to say that TSECL always try it's best to release fund to the agency after complying all norms & regulations etc. in force.

        Thank you                                         Yours faithfully
                                                   Addl. General Manager (DP&C)
                                                          TSECL; Agartala

Copy to:-(i) The Director(Finance) TSECL for favour of his kind information please.

(ii)The GM.(Tech), TSECL for favour of his kind information please.

(iii)The DGM CCD for information.

Addl. General Manager(DP&C) TSECL, Agartala

[4] Even the respondents by filing the reply have clearly admitted their obligation of payment. In para 14 of the reply the respondents have stated as follows:

"it is submitted that, as per office records it appears that an amount of Rs.27,75,810/- only for balance part payment and Rs.18,78,000/- only as Security deposit i.e. total Rs.46,53,810/- only is to be paid to the petitioner. There are various reasons and briers for nonpayment of the balance amount, mainly the fund was not available with the Corporation. The Respondent- Corporation on several occasion made communication to the Managing Director, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited for the fund of Share from NE-States- request for early release of funds to TSECL. On 24-11- 2020 the Corporation appraised the fund to the Managing Director Assam Power Distribution Company Limited for the Outstanding receivable fund from North Eastern States and to release the funds to TSECL....."

[5] The respondents have also stated that since they have not received the fund from the North Eastern states, they could not make the payment to the petitioner. Mr. N.Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that a reasonable time may be given to the respondents for payment.

[6] Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as negotiating the averments and the documents in the writ petition and the replies, we are of the view that the grounds for delaying the payments is absolutely unsustainable.

[7] The obligation to pay cannot be denied on the basis that some North Eastern states had not paid their due to the respondents. They are bound by the contractual provision which says that on completion of the work, the final bill would be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has waited almost for 4 years to have his bills. In such circumstances we have no other options but to direct the respondents to make payment of the said amount to the extent of Rs.46,53,810/- as admitted by the respondents in para 14 of the reply within a period of 02(two) months from this date failing which the said amount shall carry interest @7% per annum from the date when the work was complete.

[8] Having observed thus, this petition stands allowed, to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.

                     JUDGE                                                JUDGE




Saikat Sarma