High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 5048/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI Heard Dr. G Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B Devi, lear ned Standing Counsel, Railways appearing for the respondents. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that t he petitioner is a Class-A contractor of the N.E.F. Railways and he had entered into a contract agreement No. CON/GOP/85 dated 22.07.1996 being the successful t enderer for supply of Stone Ballasts to N.E.F. Railways. The work was executed a nd the petitioner had raised a bill of Rs. 4,15,000/- for the said quantity of S tone Ballasts supplied. In the meantime, in respect of the said contract agreeme nt, Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offences), Assam, Guwahati, for short, BIE O, registered a case being No. 1/03 under Section 468/471/420/34 IPC with the al legation that the certificate with regard to payment of forest royalty by the pe titioner was forged. Subsequently, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Section 46 8/471/420 IPC. By an order dated 09.08.2004 (Annexure-D), an amount of Rs. 4,15, 000/- was kept in suspense account by withholding the amount payable in connecti on with contract under Contract Agreement No. Dy.CE/CON/RNY/6. By representation dated 20.12.2005, the petitioner requested the respondent No. 3 for releasing t he said amount of Rs. 4,15,000/- against the final bill of the Contract Agreemen t No. CON/GOP/85. But the representation failed to evoke any response and hence the writ petition. In the affidavit-in-opposition that was filed, apart from raising the point of m aintainability for not arraying the State of Assam and its functionaries as part y respondents, which, according to the respondents, were necessary parties, it i s categorically stated that no dues were pending in the account of the petitione r in respect of Contract Agreement No. CON/GOP/85 dated 22.07.1996 and all amoun ts in respect of the said contract were released based on the Forest Clearance C ertificate submitted by the petitioner. However, as a case was registered agains t the petitioner in connection with production of forged certificate by the BIEO , an amount of Rs. 4,15,000/- was withheld from the bills of the petitioner in r espect of another contract numbered as CA No. Dy.CE/CON/RNY/6 dated 13.03.2003 a s an interim measure. Dr. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first place, the allegations levelled against the petitioner that he had used forged and false c ertificate showing payment of forest royalty was a totally baseless allegation a nd certificates with regard to payment of royalty by the petitioner were duly is sued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara and Divisional Forest Officer, B ongaigaon which are annexed as Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A2 in the writ petition. He submits that in the criminal case registered as GR No. 4445/2003 correspondin g to Case No. 1/03, charges under Sections 471/420 IPC were framed and the learn ed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati vide his judgment and order dated 11.04.2012 had acquitted the petitioner from the charges as the prosecution mis
Legal Reasoning
erably fail to prove its case. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 11 of the judgmen t to contend that the jurisdictional Divisional Forest Officers, who had issued the certificates, were examined by the petitioner as defence witnesses and that they had deposed that certificates were issued by them. As the case had ended in acquittal, learned counsel submits that there can be no reason now for not releasing the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4,15,000/- to the peti tioner. He also submits that petitioner is entitled to interest. Ms. B Devi, learned Standing Counsel, Railways submits that in order to protect Government revenue in the wake of filing of the criminal case by BIEO, the amoun t of Rs. 4,15,000/- was withheld and that it was permissible for the authorities to have withheld the amount from payment due in respect of another contract. Sh e submits that on 26.07.2013, when the certified copy of the judgment and order was produced before the Court, a copy of the same was furnished to her. The lear ned Standing Counsel submits that on instructions being sought for from the auth orities, she has been told that till now they have not received any copy of the order. This position is disputed by Dr. Lal and he submits that on 17.07.2013, a copy w as served with due acknowledgement. It is also submitted that earlier also a cop y was submitted. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record including the certified copy produced by Dr. Lal. From the perusal of the averments made in the affidavit of the respondents, it i s crystal clear that the amount of Rs. 4,15,000/- was withheld only on the accou nt of the fact that a criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, there cannot be any justification on the part of the Railways to cont inue to withhold the amount of Rs.4,15,000/- after the petitioner had been acqui tted, as the very basis for withholding the same ceases to exist. This Court sees no reason to disbelieve the certified copy produced by Dr. Lal a nd therefore, it is considered appropriate to direct the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 4,15,000/- within a period of 2 (two) months from today. Howev er, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for grant of interest is declined. Notwithstanding the aforesaid directions, the respondents, if so desire, can mak e an enquiry with regard to disposal of GR Case No. 4445/2003. However, unless i t is found on such enquiry, if there be any, that the case is still pending or t he judgment is otherwise, payment shall be made within the period of 2 (two) mon ths aforesaid. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. The scanned copy of the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 11.04.20 12 passed in GR Case No. 4445/2003 is made part of the record.