Tripura High Court
Surajit Saha vs T.S.E.C.L & Ors on 7 January, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 561 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 fact that is relevant in the perspective is
that the respondent invited a tender for construction of two storied Sub-
Division cum office building with provision of vertical expansion in
future at Pragati Road, Agartala(Re-Call). The petitioner was the
successful bidder and he entered into an agreement vide No. 16/ DGM/
CCD / 2015-2016 on 25.01.2016. In terms thereof, the petitioner had
completed the said work to the full satisfaction of the respondents on
25.05.2017. All formalities for finalizing the transaction was complete.
From 25.05.2017 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.51,80,174/-. Even they also did not release the security deposit to the
extent of Rs.22,97,797/-, in total Rs.78,40,371.00/-. The petitioner
reminded the respondents of their obligations to make the payment or to
release of the said security deposits. The petitioner is also entitled to get
payment of Rs.3,62,400.00 on account of earnest money. Therefore the
total outstanding is accounted for, at Rs.78,40,371.00. As the payment
due to him has not been made, the petitioner had requested the
respondent no.2 for payment of the said due by two consecutive letters
dated 30.09.2019 and 18.10.2019 [Annexures2 and 3 respectively].
When nothing positive yielded, 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-5 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/19-20/39883-86 Dated 25/11/2019
To
Sri Surajit Saha, Govt. Contractor
Agartala
Sub: Regarding settlement of dispute for the work "Construction of two storied Sub-
Division cum office building with provision of vertical expansion in future at Pragati Road
Agartala"
Ref:-(i) Agreement no 16/ DGM/CCD/2015-16 Dt.25/01/2016
(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.51,80,174.00 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 of the said outstanding amount. In
para 13 of the reply the respondents have stated as follows:
"13. That in reply to the averments made in
pargraph-15, it is submitted that, as per available records
it appears that an amount of Rs. 53,13,511/- only for
balance part payment and Rs. 22,97,797/- only as
Security deposit and Rs.3,62,400/-only as earnest money
is to be paid to the petitioner."
[5] The respondents have also stated that since they have not
received the fund from the R-APDRP, they could not make the payment
due to the petitioner. Mr. N.Majumder, learned counsel has submitted
that a reasonable time may be given to the respondents for making
payment of the said amount i.e. Rs.78,40,571/-, having added the figures
on this court.
[6] Having considered the submission of the counsel for the
parties as well as negotiating the averments and the documents in the
writ petition and the reply as referred, we are of the view that the
grounds for delaying the payments is absolutely unsustainable,
particularly when the quantum is undisputed.
[7] The obligation to pay cannot be denied on the basis that the
funding agency had not paid their contribution 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 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.78,40,571/-, 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
