Tripura High Court
Gopal Gobinda Babaharik Samabaye ... vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 10 January, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WP(C) No.20 of 2023
Gopal Gobinda Babaharik Samabaye Samity Limited, a Co-operative
Society registered under the Tripura Co-operative Societies Act, 1974,
having its registered office at Netaji Market, Agartala, Sub-Division Sadar,
District- West Tripura. Represented by its Manager Sri Prantik Dey (31
years), son of Sri Palash Chandra Dey, Pratapgarh, Agartala, West Tripura,
Pin-799004.
..... Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented by the Department Health & Family Welfare,
Room No.348, "A" wing, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.
2. The State of Tripura represented by the Secretary Department of Health
and Family Welfare, Government of Tripura, New Secretary Complex,
Kunjaban, Agartala.
3. Mission Director, National Health Mission, Government of Tripura,
SIHFW Building 1st Floor, CMO (West) Office, Palace Compound,
Agartala, Tripura 799001.
..... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.J. Saha, Advocate,
Mr. B. Paul, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Date of hearing & judgment : 10th January, 2023
Heard Mr. D.J. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents
[2] The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to
pay the amount of Rs.2,58,386/- with regard to the demand of the
petitioner.
[3] The petitioner is a consumers' cooperative society and is
engaged in sales and supply of different materials to the Government as
well as non-government organization. The respondent No.3 passed supply
order in favour of the petitioner and directed for supply of laboratory
articles for functioning urban PHCs under the jurisdiction of West
District under the respondents. The petitioner raised bill against the
respondents. However, the respondents did not pay the amount of the bill.
[4] The Government of Tripura issued a notification dated
27.07.2015 and introduced the Tripura Cooperative Development
Incentive Scheme, 2015 for the development of cooperative societies
registered under the said Act. Under the said scheme, the government
department, Public Sector Enterprise, Autonomous bodies, government
aided institutions were authorized to purchase stationary and other articles
including food grains, essential commodities, computers and other bodies.
Vide File No. F.3(5-3196)-FWPM/SHFWS/Proc./2016 dated 05.07.2017,
the respondent No.3 passed supply orders in favour of the petitioner for
supply of laboratory articles for functioning urban PHCs under the
jurisdiction of West District.
[5] Pursuant to supply order, the petitioner supplied the articles
through delivery challans dated 03.09.2017. The petitioner also raised
two tax invoices vide No.GST/8/110A/18-19 dated 18.08.2018 and vide
No.GST/8/110B/18-19 dated 18.08.2018 aggregated to Rs.2,58,386/. It is
alleged by the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the petitioner
supplied the articles pursuant to supply order, he was not paid the due
amount. However, the petitioner issued a demand letter on 26.09.2019 but
the said demand remained ineffective, and therefore, the petitioner issued
two more demand letters dated 18.12.2021 and 11.05.2022 but the
respondents did not pay any amount to the petitioner.
[6] Vide memorandum No.F.1-3(13)CONS/COOP/2006/10521-
59 dated 19.09.2013 issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for
supply of stationary and other required articles to various Departments
were authorized to add 5% service charge in the sale price in the event of
doorstep delivery on credit purchase within 30 days. The petitioner
supplied the articles at the doorstep of each of the office. Therefore,
additional service charge along with interest to the extent of the
memorandum is also entitled by the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled
to Rs.2,58,386/- but the respondents are unnecessarily harassing the
petitioner by not paying the amount and, therefore, the instant petition has
been filed.
[7] The petitioner has prayed for the following relief :
"(i) Issue rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why a
writ in the form of MANDAMUS or in the nature thereof, shall
not be issued, directing, mandating, commanding, the respondents
to pay the amount of Rs.2,58,386/- in accordance to the demand
of the respondent (Annexure-9);
(ii) Issue rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ
in the form of MANDAMUS or in the nature thereof, shall not be
issued, directing, mandating, commanding, the respondents to pay
the interest at the rate of 8% on the principal amount of
Rs.2,58,386/-;
(iii) Issue rule NISI;
(iv) In case the respondents show causes or not, this Hon'ble High
Court be pleased to pass necessary orders in terms of the above;
(v) Pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper"
[8] Mr. D.J. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the he is treated arbitrarily by denying the payment of the bill
raised against supply order of the respondents. On the other hand, Mr.
Mangal Debbarma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the State-respondents fairly contends that since the respondent No.3
(National Health Mission) passed supply orders in favour of the petitioner
for supply of laboratory articles for functioning urban PHCs, the liability
is on the respondent No.3 (National Health Mission) to clear the bills.
[9] After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, this
Court is of the considered view that the petitioner shall make a detailed
demand in the form of representation and enclosing his bills in support of
his claim before the respondent No.3 and on receipt of such demand, the
respondent No.3 shall consider the same, in accordance with law with
regard to making the payment of bill. The undisputed amount shall be
cleared within a period of 3(three) months and whenever the respondents
are raising any dispute, the same may be communicated to the petitioner.
[10] Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Dipesh
