Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
National Printers, represented through its Director Krishan Kant Kedia - Petitioner
Versus
Principal Secretary, HRD-cum-State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council and Others - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 151 of 2015
Decided On : 03-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, A.S.G., Mr. Gautam Kumar, C.G.C., Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II, Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
For the A.G. :Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Instant writ petition is under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking therein reliefs – Held, Further, when the scheme does not provide to show interference by Central Government merely because 60% of share is to be given by it, it is not available for Central Government to interfere with internal affairs of State Government otherwise same will hit very federal principle of system of Government – Moreover, constitutional body, i.e., Comptroller and Auditor General has also conducted an audit and has not reported about embezzlement or omission or commission of public money in connection with issue – Court, therefore, is of view that decision of Central Government as contained in letter showing interference with internal affairs of State Government, cannot be said to be justified and further on its merit, on basis of reason referred hereinabove, same cannot be said to be decision based upon justification – Writ petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein the following reliefs:
“(A) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.06.2014 passed pursuant to order dated 31.03.2014 in WP(C) 798/2014 by the respondents whereby the respondent on one hand has categorically admitted that a sum of Rs. 11,61,70,081/- due and payable to the petitioner and on the other hand has denied release of payment without assigning any cogent reason and only on basis of order no. 15/22012EE.XI dated 18.10.2013 passed by Respondent No. 5 whereby and whereunder Respondent No. 5 has allegedly ordered for stoppage of release of payment to petitioner.
(B) For issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to bring on record order no 15/22012EE.XI dated 18.10.2013 wherein respondent no. 5 has unilaterally ordered for stoppage of release of payments related to printing of text books done by the petitioner and to quash the same and consequently order for release of the admitted dues of the petitioner.
(C) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction upon the Respondents for making payment of compound interest (with monthly interests) @12% on the amount of Rs. 11,61,70,081/- due to the petitioner from the date immediately following the date agreed upon under the provisions of Section 4 and “The 5 of “The “The Interest On Delayed Payments To Small Scale And Ancillary industrial Undertakings Act, 1993”
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated reads as under:
The tender dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure-1) for printing and supplying of text books, for Classes I to VIII was floated by the respondent No. 1 Jharkhand Education Project Council, under the signature of Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development (HRD) Department-cum-State Project Director, JEPC, Ranchi.
The petitioner participated in the bidding process and submitted the requisite documents (Annexure-2) and gave his consent for printing and supplying of text books for Class VIII, at the lowest rate vide letter dated 24.09.2012 (Annexure-4). The contract was valued at Rs. 16,62,79,595.29/-. The petitioner furnished the bank guarantee of Rs. 83,13,980/-, i.e., 5% of the amount as security, and the work order dated 25.09.2012, (Annexure-6), was issued in favour of the petitioner. The agreement/contract dated 25.09.2012 (Annexure-21) was executed and entered into by the petitioner and the respondents, consequent thereto, an advance amount of 30%, i.e., Rs. 4,88,86,200/- of the contract value was released in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-8. As per terms of the work order and contract the text books, of Package no. 8 (i.e. for Class VIII), were to be delivered at the destination point within 145 days.
The petitioner completed the work for printing and supplying of the text books within the stipulated period and submitted the bills, dated 21.02.2013 (Annexure-9). The petitioner filed the representation dated 28.06.2013, requesting the respondents to release the remaining amount of Rs. 11,61,70,081/-, but the respondents did not release the outstanding amount. Then, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 798 of 2014 wherein this Court directed the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a reasoned ordered within six weeks.
In view of the direction of the High Court in W.P(C) No. 798 of 2014 the petitioner submitted several representations, for releasing the outstanding amount, to the respondents (Annexure-13 series). In response to representations, the respondents, by letter dated 05.06.2014, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the communication dated 18.10.2013 of the Ministry of Human Resources Development Department (for short ‘MHRD’), Government of India (for short GOI) wherein it is mentioned that no expenditure for the procurement of tex
