SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1242

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
M/s Arihant Store, S/o Motiur Rahman - Appellant 
Versus
The State Of Assam And 4 Ors. - Respondents  
WP(C) 6926 of 2024
Decided on : 23-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R. Islam, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, SC, Revenue

Verification of compliance with contractual obligations is essential for entitlement to payment in supply agreements.

Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Supply Agreements - Non-Payment of Contractual Bill - Petitioner claimed Rs.1,30,68,314/- for supplies made to the flood-affected areas; despite acceptance of quotation and submission of bills, payment was denied citing ongoing verification processes - Court found entitlement for payment upon successful verification of supplied goods and required documentation. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 7)

(B) Judicial Review - Courts have jurisdiction to direct authorities to verify claims and enforce contractual obligations where the petitioner has complied with the terms. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner submitted a quotation for supply of essential goods post-natural calamities, which was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner. Several orders were issued, but the payment of the total outstanding amount has not been disbursed. The earlier writ petition directed the authority to examine the claim and ensure payment. (Paras 1-4)

Findings of Court:
If the supply has been executed as per the terms, the petitioner is entitled to the claimed amount, with necessary verification required by the Respondent Authorities. The process should be completed within six months. (Paras 6, 7)

Issues: The main issues addressed include the petitioner’s entitlement to payment based on execution of supply orders and the required verification of claims. (Paras 4, 7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the obligation of authorities to ensure payment upon successful verification of the supply and documentation, indicating that entitlement is subject to verification of compliance. (Paras 6, 7)

Result: Writ petition disposed as directed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to non-payment of contractual bill (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on verification and entitlement (Para 4 , 5)
3. court directive for verification and resolution (Para 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the non-payment of the contractual bill of Rs.1,30,68,314/- for the work awarded to the petitioner vide the quotation dated 12.05.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, South Salmara Mankachar District for supplying the good quality of common/grade-A/local (Raw) variety of rice, Masur dal (Big/Small) variety, Mustard Oil (with brand name) of 15 liters tin, Iodised salt, Chira, Gur, polythene sheet, Tarpaulin (size 15’X12’, 15’X18’), Cattle feed (wheat bran), Baby food (Cerelac) etc. for distribution amongst the flood/erosion and other natural calamities affected people of South Salmara Mankachar District for a period of one year up to 31.03.2017 from the date of settlement under the terms and conditions mentioned in the said quotation.

2. The case of the petitioner herein is that pursuant to the quotation dated 12.05.2016, the petitioner submitted its quotation along with all the required documents before the authority concerned. It is stated that pursuant to the acceptance of the quotation(s) of the petitioner, several intent orders were issued by the Deputy Commissioner, South Salmara Mankachar District in favour of the petitioner on 25.07.2016, 27.07.2016, 28.07.2016 and 31.07.2016 and 28.07.2016 respectively directing the petitioner to supply the G.R. items and hand over the same to the Assistant Director, FCS & CA, Hatsingimari. Accordingly, the petitioner supplied the same and thereafter submitted bills against each intent order amounting to Rs.1,30,68,314/- before the respondent authorities. However, the said amount has not been disbursed to him till date.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No.4965/2018 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide the judgment and order dated 30.07.2018 directing the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate order indicating the amount payable to the petitioner within a period of 4 months.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after obtaining the certified copy of the said judgment and order dated 30.07.2018, the petitioner submitted the same before the concerned authority. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 expressed its inability to make payment against such claim of the petitioner in view of the findings of the Divisional Commissioner, Lower Assam Division vide enquiry report submitted on 16.09.2017 and also due to the fact that the findings of the enquiry conducted by the Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell is yet to be received by the Department. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

5. Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue Department submitted that necessary verification process is going on as regards the entitlement of the petitioner of an amount of Rs.1,30,68,314/- and in that regard placed an instruction before this Court which is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”.

6. Upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner had made the supply pursuant to supply orders issued, the petitioner would be entitled to the amount as claimed. However, for the same, verification on the part of the Respondent Authorities would be required.

7. This Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:-

i) The Respondent Authorities shall verify as to whether the petitioner had successfully executed the work, i.e. for supplying the good quality of common/grade-A/local (Raw) variety of rice, Masur dal (Big/Small) variety, Mustard Oil (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top