M/S Hindustan Supply Agency v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/276/2024 M/s Hindustan Supply Agency Vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. K.Vijay Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents January 9, 2025 [SR] Item no. 46 1.

The petitioner had supplied medical equipment to the respondent Administration in the year 2014. The claim in respect of such supply was settled in a meeting on 16.09.2022, wherein payment of rupees 38,84,940/- was made to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter has filed a representation for payment of interest on the dues on account of the fact that the payment has been made after a long period nearly eight (8) years after the supply.

2.

Since the representation was not being considered, the petitioner filed a writ petition. This Court in WPA/689/2023 directed for disposal of the representation.

3.

The representation has been rejected by an order passed by the Chief Secretary on 11.12.2023.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dues have wrongly been withheld for a period of eight (8) years. The respondent authorities in this circumstance cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily and gain any advantage from their own wrong and deprive the petitioner of his legitimate dues for

no fault on his part. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Miscro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) unit and therefore the government owes certain benefits to such entities under the various schemes. He submits that delay has not been occasioned on account of any fault of the petitioner. 5.

Learned senior counsel for the respondent seriously disputes the submission. He submitted that the claim has been rejected in accordance with the terms of the contract, wherein there is no provision for grant of any interest on any dues. 6.

From the submission of the parties, it is apparent that the matter involves disputed issues of fact arising out of supply of goods under contractual obligation. The terms of the contract is also required to be gone into and examined. It is also obvious that the issue as to who is the defaulting party will be required to be considered. All the issues are required to be considered in reference to various disputed issues of facts and evidences. 7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, being faced with such circumstance submits that the petitioner be given liberty to avail the appropriate remedy either before the MSME council or before the any other forum.

8.

The petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law. Reserving such liberty, the writ application is disposed of.

( Madhuresh Prasad, J. )