IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Smti. Priyanchi R. Marak & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Meghalaya Represented By The Chief Secretary Govt. of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 359 of 2021
Decided On : 26-04-2024
Contract - Writ Petition - State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) and National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) - The court analyzed the provisions of SDRF and NDRF regarding the supply of animal feed post-disaster, emphasizing adherence to procedural norms and the implications of disputed facts on maintainability of writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
Two writ petitions were filed by petitioners claiming non-payment for supplying animal and poultry feed after a disaster in 2014, despite fulfilling their contractual obligations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners complied with supply orders but faced non-payment due to procedural objections raised by the state authorities, leading to disputed questions of fact.
Issues: Whether the writ petitions are maintainable given the alleged delay and the existence of disputed questions of fact regarding the supply of feed and adherence to SDRF and NDRF norms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disputes arising from contractual obligations, especially those involving factual discrepancies, are better suited for resolution in civil courts rather than through writ petitions.
Result: The petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.
COMMON JUDGMENT
W. Diengdoh, J. - These two writ petitions although filed separately by two petitioners, involved a dispute which arose from a common source, that is, the grievance of the respective petitioner wherewith their fundamental and legal rights have allegedly been violated by the relevant authorities, particularly the fact that in spite of the petitioners having fulfilled their contractual obligation in the area of supply of cattle, poultry and pig feed, the respondents have failed to make payment of the same even after many long years.
2. It is in this background that this Court would consider it convenient to take up both the matters and to pass a common order.
3. In the case of Priyanchi Marak [WP(C) No. 279 of 2021], it is the submission of the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner Mr. H.L. Shangreiso that the petitioner was selected to take on the task of supply of animal and poultry feed to animals and poultry affected by the flash flood/landslide which occurred in the North Garo Hills areas on 22.09.2014. The selection was the result of a resolution passed in the meeting held on 05.12.2014 which was chaired by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Rev), North Garo Hills whereby a Committee in connection with the approved rate for supply of feed on an urgent and emergency need, was convened.
4. In the said meeting, it was decided and approved that the rate per kilogram for transportation cost and for supply of feed for the animals and poultry feed in North Garo Hills shall be Rs. 35/- (rupees thirty-five) only. Consequently, three firms/suppliers were selected for the said purpose, the petitioner being one of them, being duly notified vide communication No.DVOR/Flood/2014-2015/3150, dated 08.12.2014 issued by the District A.H. Vety. Officer, Resubelpara (Gangdubi), North Garo Hills. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the petitioner is to supply 3428.5715 quintals of cattle feed and 1428.5715 quintals of pig feed.
5. Again, vide order dated 21.01.2015, the District A.H. Vety. Officer, has called upon the petitioner to supply 1428.5715 quintals of poultry feed to different Dispensaries and Aid Distribution. All the orders were duly complied with by the petitioner for which the District A.H. Vety. Officer has issued the Utilisation Certificate, annexed as Annexure-5 in this petition. The total claim of this petitioner amounts to Rs. 2,20,00,000/- (rupees two crores twenty lakhs) only.
6. It is also the submission of the learned Sr. counsel that the petitioner has submitted the bills on account of the supply of the said materials to the District A.H. Vety. Officer and in turn, the Deputy Commissioner(Rev), North Garo Hills District has forwarded the same to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management vide letter dated 04.10.2018. Not having received any response to the said letter, the Deputy Commissioner(Rev) NGH has once again forwarded another letter of the District A.H. Veterinary Officer to the Joint Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management, the same being dated 19.11.2019.
7. The learned Sr. counsel has further submitted that on verbal assurance that the said bills will be cleared, the petitioner has waited for about 7 years for release of the payment, but since no response was forthcoming, the petitioner filed a representation dated 18.02.2020 before the District A.H. Vety. Officer. However, even after 9 months of the said representation, no positive reply was received from the relevant respondents, the petitioner/firm was compelled to approach this Court with a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 424 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 15.12.2020, had disposed of the said petition with a direction to the respondents to decide on the said representation dated 18.02.2020 preferably within four weeks.
8. It is the submission of the learned Sr. counsel that the respondent/District A.H. Veterinary Officer had addressed a letter No. DVR/DISTR-166/2020-21/1200 dated 04.01.2021 to the petitioner with an intim
Disputed questions of fact in contractual matters should be resolved in civil courts, not through writ petitions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.