M/S T.T. Trading Company And ANR. v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/149/2020 M/s. T. T. Trading Company and Another Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mrs. Anjili Nag ... for the petitioners Mr. V. D. Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar ... for the respondents February 26, 2024 [AKB] Item No. 13 Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authority concerned to clear the bills for the work executed by the petitioner in terms of the tender-in-question.

Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that inspite of issuance of satisfactory report by the authority concerned on 18th March, 2016 as appears at page 31 of the writ petition and inspite of sanction order of the bills-in-question by the authority concerned long back on 22nd July, 2016 being annexure P-8 to the writ petition, the respondent authorities are not making payment to the petitioner.

Learned Advocate representing the respondent authorities in opposing the writ petition takes the point of maintainability of the writ petition at this stage of final hearing after passing of more than three years and even after filing affidavit-in-opposition by contending that the writ petition is not maintainable since claim arises out of a contract containing arbitration clause. It appears from record that this point of maintainability was not taken at the time of moving this writ petition and it has not been kept open and on merit of the claim of the petitioner, respondent could not make any submission. He also could not challenge the legality and validity of the satisfactory report and the sanction of bills issued by the department itself.

Mrs. Nag, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, against the objection of the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of arbitration clause in the tender-in-question, relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Tantia Construction Private Ltd. reported in 2011 (4) Civil LJ 228.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the parties, I am of the view that petitioner has been able to make out the case for relief in this writ petition inspite of availability of alternative remedy in view of the work satisfaction order and sanction order in respect of the bills-in-question and in view of the fact that the claim of the petitioner though may be monetary, but it is admitted, I am of the view that action of withholding of the payment of the petitioner by the respondent authority, is arbitrarily, illegal and unreasonable and respondent authority concerned is directed to make the payment of the bills sanctioned by the authority on 22nd July, 2016 being annexure P-8 to the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order subject to compliance of any legal formalities. Petitioner shall be entitled to claim interest before the authority concerned who will consider the same in accordance with law. (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)