The court's intervention to direct the release of outstanding bills in installments when the respondent authorities admitted the outstanding bill amount but failed to release the payment.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for release of petitioner’s outstanding bills amounting to Rs.96,77,18,473/- (Rupees ninety six crore seventy seven lakhs eighteen thousand four hundred and seventy three) payable against the Hills Transport Subsidy bills claim of the petitioner for transportation of PDS goods from FCI Godown, Bhalukpong, Arunachal Pradesh to East Kameng, West Kameng and the Tawang Districts of Arunachal Pradesh pursuant to work Orders dated 10.12.2002, 23.03.2002, 16.03.2003, 26.06.2003, 17.10.2003, 26.04.2004 and 26.06.2003.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh under the Hill Transport Subsidy (for short ‘HTS’) Scheme appointed the petitioner as carriage contractor vide various work orders for transportation of PDS Goods by the District Supply Officer, on behalf of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh to carry PDS Goods from FCI Godown, Bhalukpong, Arunachal Pradesh to the Districts of East Kameng, West Kameng and Tawang District of Arunachal Pradesh for the period of 2004, 2005 & 2006. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/S Sahil Enterprise, M/S Miya Tom Enterprise and M/S Sahil Transport Corporation and the Power of Attorney Holder of M/S Sela Transport, Tawang and M/S Rinchin Kharu, Bomdila and through these firms, he carried on the business of transport and carriage contracts. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuant to the aforesaid appointment orders, Deed of Agreements were executed by the petitioner with the Deputy Commissioner of respective Districts with certain terms and conditions stipulated therein. Accordingly, the petitioner transported the PDS Goods and handed over the said PDS Goods to the satisfaction of the authorities of 3 (three) Districts. Thus, the petitioner submitted the bills which were verified and cross-checked by the concerned Deputy Commissioners and forwarded to the Directorate of Food and Civil Supply, Government of Arunachal Pradesh for release of the payment.

4. The petitioner further stated that although he was entitled to get the payment of the bills, but the same were not cleared without any valid reason and the authorities did not consider the burden on the petitioner for repayment of the loan to banks from which the loan was availed by the petitioner for execution of the work order of transportation of PDS Goods. The interest of the loan amount has been rising high and due to failure on the part of the petitioner to repay the loan, the bank has initiated proceedings against the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati vide OA No. 104/2011 and accordingly recovery certificate amounting to Rs.6,46,94,134/- with interest @ 13.5% per annum from 2011 for recovery against the petitioner was issued by the Tribunal. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 170/2018, and this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition on 05.12.2018 with a similar view as was taken by the Court in the common judgment dated 17.11.2017, passed in WP(C) Nos. 638/(AP)2017, 639(AP)/2017, 640(AP)/2017 & 641(AP)/2017, with a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of the principal bills amount amounting to Rs.44,82,03,503 (Rupees forty four crore eighty two lakhs three thousand five hundred three) only within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. But the authority concerned did not pay any heed and wilfully did not comply with the order passed by this Court. However, the respondent authorities have already paid bills to the similarly situated contractors who had approached this Court in the said WP(C) Nos. 638/(AP)2017, 639(AP)/2017, 640(AP)/2017 & 641(AP)/2017. Thereafter, the petitioner,