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

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WPA/689/2023 M/s. Hindustan Supply Agency ... Petitioner Vs.

The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Surajit Samanta Mr. K. Vijay Kumar ...for the Petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty ...for the Respondents September 26, 2023 (M.A.Mobin) Item No.7 The Writ Petitioner here is aggrieved due to the inaction of the Respondent Authorities in considering its two representations dated November 30, 2022 and March 15, respectively.

By dint of the said two representations the Writ Petitioner has claimed interest for delayed payment of consideration by the Respondent Authorities, after enjoying the supply of goods as per the tender requirements.

It is submitted by Mr. Samanta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the goods were supplied pursuant to a successful bid in a tender back in the year 2014. He says that since thereafter, for years together, his client has been deprived of the payment against such supply, for which the respondents have shown the ground of pendency of a departmental enquiry proceeding. However, Mr. Samanta has indicated that the

present Writ Petitioner being the supplier of the goods was no way involved in the said Departmental proceedings. The Writ Petitioner in order to redress her grievance has moved the Writ Court thrice earlier. By referring to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated March 5, 2019 (in MA No.011 of 2019) and also July 28, 2022 (in WPA 243/2022), Mr. Samanta has stated that the Writ Courts all along have been considering the Writ Petitioner's claim for the consideration money as well as the interest for delayed payment of the same as a justified claim and directed the Respondent Authorities from time to time to consider for payment of the same without embarking upon to the reason of pendency of the disciplinary enquiry, to withhold the process of payment to the Writ Petitioner in any way.

It is admitted that vide order dated September 16, 2022 the Writ Petitioner has been paid the consideration money as against the bill raised by him for supply of goods. From the said order Mr. Samanta has pointed out to the fact that his client has already claimed interest for the unpaid billed amount before the Respondent Authorities.

Since thereafter the above two representations claiming interests for delayed payment, as submitted by the Writ Petitioner have been pending before the authorities. As the Respondent Authorities have been silent about such claim of the Writ Petitioner in their order dated September 16, 2022, the petitioner had made specific prayer but to no

avail. Accordingly, the Writ Petitioner is now before this Court, to seek redress of her grievance.

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned Advocate, who has represented the Respondent Authorities in this case has not seriously challenged the claim of the Writ Petitioner as to the admissibility of the amount of interest. Mr. Chakraborty has stated that initially the Writ Petitioner did not claim the interest amount and this Court considers that there not has been any scope for him to do the same as the Writ Petitioner would not have anticipated any delay in advance, in payment of his bills, as against the supplied goods. The further contention of Mr. Chakraborty is that the amount of consideration against his bill has been received by the Writ Petitioner without any objection raised as to alleged non-payment of interest.

This submission of the respondents too, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be substantiated, in view of the subsequent two representations of the Writ Petitioner which are yet to be looked into by the Respondent Authorities. As a matter of fact so far as the Writ Petitioner is concerned, the provisions of the "Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993" would be applicable in her case.

Petitioner was no way made a party, by the concerned Respondent Authority.

The entire discussion as above prompt this Court to find that there is no plausible or justifiable reason for the Respondent Authorities in withdrawing the writ petitioner's claim at the first instance, against the materials supplied to the Respondent Authorities. Under such circumstances, the admitted delayed payment of the bill amount would render the Respondent Authorities to pay interest to the Writ Petitioner at an appropriate rate.

Let this Writ Petition be disposed of with the direction upon the concerned Respondent Authority i.e. Respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the representations of the Writ Petitioner dated November 30, 2022 and March 15, 2023 respectively, by affording opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties thereto and by issuing a reasoned order thereupon.

The entire exercise as above shall be concluded by the said Respondent No.2 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of the order.

WPA 689 of 2023 is allowed.

Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order be supplied to the parties after compliance of all required formalities.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)