Tripura High Court
Gopal Gobinda Babaharik Samabaye ... vs The State Of Tripura on 10 January, 2023
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WP(C) No.19 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. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary of Home(Prisons),
New Secretariat Building, Gorkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban, District- West
Tripura.
2. Inspector General of Prisons, the Head Office, Prisons Directorate,
Dhaleshwar, Agartala, West Tripura-799007.
..... 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
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.29,08,062/- 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 respondents directed the
petitioner to supply goods from the financial year 2018 to till date and the
respondents have not cleared the bills.
[4] It is alleged that during the financial years 2018-19, 2019-20,
2021-22 & 2022-23 the petitioner had raised certain amount of bills
amounting to Rs.1,24,36,927/- for which the respondents paid
Rs.83,97,595/- and an amount of Rs.40,39,332/- is still due. Since the
respondents had not cleared the due bills, the petitioner issued demand
letter No. GGBSS/Letters/2022-23 dated 04.11.2022 for clearance of the
long outstanding bill.
[5] Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court by filing
WP(C) No.953 of 2022 and WP(C) No.954 of 2022 and sought for a
direction upon the respondents to pay Rs.11,31,270/-. This Court while
disposing the writ petitions directed the respondents to consider the
demand raised by the petitioner within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of the copy of this order, in accordance with law. The
order reads as follows :
"When the Court has gone through the records, asked Mr. B. Paul,
learned counsel appears vice Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner to proceed with the matter. Thereafter,
going through the record, Mr. Paul, learned counsel has made his
submissions and after hearing the argument of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for
the respondents, this Court is inclined to dispose of the matter
directing the respondent to consider the demand raised by the
petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
the copy of this order, in accordance with law."
[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. It is stated that 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.29,08,062/- 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.29,08,062/ in accordance to the demand
of the petitioner (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.29,08,062/ in accordance to the demand of the petitioner
(Annexure-9);
(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 within 3(three) months from
today they will 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 respondents and on receipt of such demand, the
respondents 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
