ORDER :

(Ananda Sen, J.)

1. This intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellants-writ petitioners challenging the order dated 11.8.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3002 of 2002, whereby, the learned Single Judge has held that the dispute being contractual in nature, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not entertainable. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse for enforcing the terms and conditions of the agreement and for payment of the alleged dues, if permissible under law.

2. The appellant-writ petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the writ petition could not have been dismissed in the manner as stated above. The writ petition was filed in the year 2002, but as the same was entertained and admitted for final hearing vide order dated 6.8.2003, on technical grounds, the same could not have been dismissed. According to the appellant-writ petitioner the dues are admitted and on false pretext, the same is being denied to the petitioner. He further submits that at no point of time, the petitioner has accepted any payment without protest rather, the payment was accepted under protest. As per him, the learned Single Judge should have decided the issue rather than relegating the petitioner before any other appropriate forum for claiming money, when the matter was pending since 2002, without there being any serious dispute of fact.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the same arises out of contractual obligation. He further submits that the appellants-writ petitioners have accepted the amount, which was fixed in a meeting, thus they are barred from raising any further claim. The revised price of bee keeping set was fixed Rs.8,965/-per set and the writ petitioners accepted the said rate and also the final payment was made on 23.3.2001 for the supply of 55 bee keeping sets. Since the petitioners had accepted the revised rate, this writ petition is not maintainable.

4. The petitioners filed the writ petition being WPC No. 3002/2002 challenging the action of the respondent authorities whereby, in arbitrary manner, the payment has been deducted/withheld in relation to supply of bee keeping sets. The respondent -State called for an offer in the month of January 2000 to supply bee keeping sets for distribution of the same to the beneficiaries under the MADA and Non-MADA Scheme. The appellants-petitioners quoted the rate of Rs.14,900/-per set to the beneficiaries and also for operating and maintaining the same, which was the lowest. The offer was accepted by the respondent-State as Rs.14,900/-per set and on 9.3.2000 the decision of the competent authority was communicated to the petitioners. It is further case of the petitioners that they have supplied the materials. The petitioners furnished the bills after supplying the materials but his entire payment was not made, but some ad hoc payments were released. It is their further case that the contract rate was reduced whimsically by the respondents, which is absolutely arbitrary and illegal.

5. In the counter affidavit, the State had taken a plea that after full payment of 32 sets as per the rate of 14,900/-, it was found that the petitioners supplied inferior bee keeping sets, thus an enquiry was conducted. As per them, it was settled between the parties that rest supply of 55 sets will be paid till final revised rate. The rate of bee keeping set was revised, due to inferior bee keeping set, which was supplied by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners supplied 55 bee keeping sets. In paragraphs 10 to 12 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken plea that they had enquired the actual rate of bee keeping sets from one Muzaffarpur Zila Khadi Gramodog Sangh and the respondents found that the price of set is much less. It is there case that that thereafter in the meeting it was decided to revise the rate of sets