Tripura High Court
The Union Of India vs M/S. Uptakhali Science Club on 12 November, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.235/2020
1. The Union of India,
represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Textiles, Udyog
Bhavan, New Delhi- 110011.
2. The Development Commissioner (Handicrafts),
Ministry of Textiles, Govt of India, West Block No. VII, R.K.
Puram, New Delhi - 110066
3. The Senior Assistant Director (CC),
Office of the Development Commissioner, (Handicrafts),
Ministry of Textiles, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi - 110011.
4. The Regional Director (NER),
Office of the Development Commissioner, (Handicrafts),
North Eastern Regional Office, Housefed office, 2nd Floor,
Central Block, Beltala, Baishista Road, Dispur, Guwahati -
781006.
5. The Handicrafts Promotions Officer,
Office of the Development Commissioner, (Handicrafts),
Handicrafts Service Centre, Agartala
6. The Assistant Director (Handicrafts),
Marketing and Service Extension Centre, Office of the
Development Commissioner, (Handicrafts), Handicraft
Service Centre, Lichubagan, P.O- Kunjaban, Agartala-
799006.
............... Appellants
Vs.
M/S. Uptakhali Science Club,
Dharmanagar, North Tripura, Represented by it's
Secretary, Sri Kousik Chakraborty, Son of - Late Kalipada
Chakraborty, Resident of Village and PO - Uptakhali, PS -
Panisagar, District-North Tripura, PIN - 799260
............... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
For Appellants(s) : Mr. Biswanath Majumder, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate
Date of hearing and
Judgment & Order : 12th November, 2021
Whether fit for reporting : NO
Page - 2 of 5
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(Oral)
(S. Talapatra,J)
Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Central Govt. Counsel
appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
[2] This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated
09/01/2020 delivered in WP(C) No.867/2019 (M/s. Uptakhali Science
Club Vrs. Union of India and others). Despite their best persuasion,
the writ petitioner-respondent did not get the payment due to them
for implementation of skill development programme successfully. For
withholding the payment, there had been no reason at all.
Consequently, the writ petitioner-respondent filed the writ petition
urging this Court for mandating the respondents (the appellants
herein) to release the amount to the extent of Rs.9,93,000/- with
interest. Learned Single Judge has observed that there is no dispute
about the satisfactory completion of the training programme. There
is no dispute about the computation of the claim as raised by the
petitioner (the respondent herein). The respondents therefore, have
been asked to release the said amount of Rs.9,93,000/- with
reasonable interest for the late payment. Having observed thus, the
following directions have been issued by the learned Single Judge:
"1) The amount of Rs.9,50,000/- already
sanctioned shall be paid over within a period of
2(two) weeks from today.
(2) Remaining amount of Rs.43,000/- shall also
be released within the same period.
WA No.235 of 2020
Page - 3 of 5
(3) Within a period of 4(four) weeks from today,
the respondents shall pay the simple interest on the
entire amount of Rs.9,93,000/- from expiry of
3(three) months from the date of raising of the bills
till actual payment @ 7.5% per annum."
[3] Mr. B. Majumder, learned Central Government counsel
appearing for the appellant has submitted that grievance of the
appellant is confined to the direction of making payment of interest
at 7.5% per annum from the day of expiry of three months from the
day of raising of the bills till the actual payment is made. According
to Mr. Majumder, in the scheme, there is no provision for providing
interest for delayed payment and hence, the writ petitioner cannot
claim any interest for the delayed payment. He has further submitted
that since the fund was not available with the competent authority,
the payment as due to the writ petitioner could not be made.
[4] Having perused the record, we have come across two
communications of the respondents. One communication dated
10.4.2018 has been issued by Handicrafts Promotion Officer of the
Office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Agartala
(Annexure-21 to the writ petition). The other communication has
recorded that the petitioner had implemented the assigned work. It
has been observed further, having referred to the bills as follows:
"Cross verified UC/GFR-19-A, Audited
statement of accounts, Bank statement,
verified bills/vouchers of the above mentioned
sanction order has already been forwarded to
WA No.235 of 2020
Page - 4 of 5
Headquarter office and UCs are still pending at
Hq. Level for Regional level recommendation"
Thereafter, by the communication dated 02.08.2018
(Annexure-22) the said Officer has contended that they have become
unable to settle the due to the writ petitioner, even though, the writ
petitioner has completed the assigned work successfully. In that
communication only, it has been observed that "delay of releasing
your payments is true due to some policy changes by our deptt. But
releasing of outstanding dues will depend on availability of fund at
Headquarter's office and also depends on competent authority."
[5] Mr. Majumder, learned Central Govt. Counsel has not
projected any challenge to the observation of the learned Single
Judge that there is no dispute about the computation of the claim
placed by the writ petitioner. His only contention is that since there is
no provision for payment of interest for the delayed payment, we
should interfere with the direction of the leaned Single Judge
directing payment of the interest as stated above. The interest has
been charged for arbitrary withholding of the payment which is
legitimately due to the writ petitioner. The respondents have
accepted their failure in paying the bills. There had been apparent
loss to the writ petitioner. To recoup that loss, learned Single Judge
has directed for making payment of interest. We are unable to accept
the plea of Mr. Majumder that since there is no provision for making
WA No.235 of 2020
Page - 5 of 5
payment of interest in the scheme, the respondents be exonerated
from paying the interest as directed by the learned Single Judge.
[6] As consequence of the above observation, this appeal
stands dismissed. Within one month from today, the payment or the
reminder be made by the appellants to the respondent with interest
as directed.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Dipankar
WA No.235 of 2020
