WA 209/2008 v. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & Ors.

Judgment

1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING CORPORATIONOF INDIA, 16/20, DIRCTOR, FOOD BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER [REGION] FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, G.S.ROAD, ULUBARI, GHY-7.

3. THE AREA MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, NORTH LAKHIMPUR &..APPELLANTS Versus

1. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF AP, ITANAGAR.

2. THE SECRETARY [LAW & JUDICIAL] GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR, PAPUMPARE DISTRICT, YUPIA, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

4. TAKAM TAGAR @ PARIO S/O LT. TAKAM MANGHA, PERMANENT KURUNG KUMEY, AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ITANAGAR, PAPUMPARE, DIST. ARUNACHAL RESIDENT OF PALIN, D’ SECTOR, PRADESH. & &RESPONDENTS IN W.A. NO.207 OF 2008 1 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND CORPORATIONOF INDIA, 16/20, MANAGING DIRCTOR, FOOD BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI 2 THE GENERAL MANAGER [REGION] FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, NORTH LAKHIMPUR. REGIONAL OFFICE, G.S.ROAD, 3 THE AREA MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, TEZPUR & &.APPELLANTS Versus 1 THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF AP, ITANAGAR. 2 THE SECRETARY [LAW & JUDICIAL] GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR. 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR, PAPUMPARE DISTRICT, YUPIA, ARUNACHAL PRADESH 4 TAKAM TAGAR @ PARIO S/O LT. TAKAM MANGHA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF PALIN, KURUNG KUMEY, AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D’ SECTOR, ITANAGAR, PAPUMPARE, DIST. ARUNACHAL PRADESH. & &RESPONDENTS IN W.A. NO. 208 OF 2008 1 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, 16/20 BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI. 2 THE GENERAL MANAGER [REGION] FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ULUBARI, GHY-7 REGIONAL OFFICE, G.S.ROAD, 3 THE AREA MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT OFFICE, NORTH & &APPELLANTS Versus 1 THE STATE OF ARUNAHCLA PRADESH REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE G OVT. OF AP, ITANAGAR. 2 THE SECRETARY [LAW & JUDICIAL] GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR. 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR, UPPER SUBANSIRI DISTRICT, YUPIA, ARUNACHAL PRADESH 4 LIKHA SAAYA S/O LIKHA HELI, NIRJULI, PAPUMPAE DISTRICT, ARUNACHAL PRA DESH &..RESPONDENTS IN W.A. NO.209 OF 2008 1 FOOD CORPORATION FO INDIA REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND CORPORATION OF INDIA, 16/20, MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI. 2 THE GENERAL MANAGER [REGION] FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ULUBARI, GHY-7 REGIONAL OFFICE, G.S.ROAD, 3 THE AREA MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, NORTH LAKHIMPUR &..APPELLANTS Versus 1 THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF A.P, ITANAGAR. 2 THE SECRETARY [LAW & JUDICIAL] GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR. 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR, UPPER SUBANSIRI DISTRICT, DAPORIJO, ARUNACHAL PRADESH 4 LIKHA MAJ M/S. S/O LT. LIKHA TAK, PROP. OF OF MIYA TOM ENTERPRISES, NAHARLAGUN, PRADESH. & & &RESPONDENTS PAPUMPARE DISTRICT, ARUNACHAL IN W.A. NO.210 OF 2008 1 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND CORPORATION OF INDIA, 16/20, MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI. 2 THE GENERAL MANAGER [REGION] FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ULUBARI, GHY-7 REGIONAL OFFICE, G.S.ROAD, 3 THE AREA MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT OFFICE, NORTH & & &.APPELLANTS Versus 1 THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF AP, ITANAGAR. 2 THE SECRETARY [LAW & JUDICIAL] GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR. 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR, UPPER SUBANSIRI DISTRICT, DAPORIJO, ARUNACHAL PRADESH 4 LIKHA SAAYA S/O LIKHA HELI, NIRJULI, PAPUMPARE DISTRICT, ARUNACHAL PRAD ESH IN W.A. NO.211 OF 2008 1 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA &..RESPONDENTS REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND CORPORATION OF INDIA, 16/20, MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI. 2 THE GENERAL MANAGER [REGION] FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ULUBARI, GHY-7 REGIONAL OFFICE, G.S.ROAD, 3 THE AREA MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, TEZPUR & & &..APPELLANTS Versus 1 THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE G OVT. OF A.P, ITANAGAR. 2 THE SECRETARY [LAW & JUDICIAL] GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR. 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, EAST KAMENG DISTRICT, DAPORIJO, ARUNACHAL PRADESH 4 LIKHA SAAYA S/O LIKHA HELI, NIRJULI, PAPUMPARE DISTRICT, ARUNACHAL PRAD ESH &..RESPONDENTS IN W.A. NO.212 OF 2008 1 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND CORPORATION OF INDIA, 16/20, MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI. 2 THE GENERAL MANAGER [REGION] FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ULUBARI, GHY-7 REGIONAL OFFICE, G.S.ROAD, 3 THE AREA MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT OFFICE, NORTH & & &APPELLANTS Versus 1 THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE G OVT. OF AP, ITANAGAR. 2 THE SECRETARY [LAW & JUDICIAL] GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR. 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR, UPPER SUBANSIRI DISTRICT, DAPORIJO, ARUNACHAL PRADESH 4 LIKHA MAJ, S/O LT. LIKHA TAK, ATTORNEY HOLDER ON BEHALOF OF SMTI. MAYA DOLO, ITANAGAR, PAPUMPARE DISTRICT, ARUNACHAL PRADESH & &RESPONDENTS IN W.A. NO.213 OF 2008 1 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, 16/20, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI. 2 THE GENERAL MANAGER [REGION] FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ULUBARI, GHY-7 REGIONAL OFFICE, G.S.ROAD, 3 THE AREA MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, TEZPUR & & &APPELLANTS Versus 1 THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF AP, ITANAGAR. 2 THE SECRETARY [LAW & JUDICIAL] GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR. 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UPPER SUBANSIRI DISTRICT, DAPORIJO, ARUNACHAL PRADESH 4 LIKHA MAJ S/O LT. LIKHA TAK, NAHARLAGUN, PAPUMPARE DISTRICT, ARUNACHAL PRADESH & & &.RESPONDENTS

P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY For the appellants For the respondents s : : Mr. K.P. Pathak, Addl. Solicitor General Mr. G. Baishya, Mr. R. Baruah, Ms. B. Das, Advocats. Mr. N. Dutta, Advocate General, A.P. Ms. M. Borah, G.A., A.P. Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate. Mr.A.M. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. A. Roshid, Mr.H.Choudhury, Advocate Respondent No.4. Dates of hearing :

04.06.2009 Date of Judgment and Order JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) (Ranjan Gogoi, J.) :

16.06.2009 All the appeals being directed against the common judgme nt and order dated 8.5.2008 were heard together and are being disposed of by the present order.

2. By the order under challenge in the present appeals, a learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appella nts against identical judgments and decrees dated 28.9.2007 passed in Money Suit Nos.2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2007 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Yupia (Arunachal Pradesh). By the aforesaid decrees, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Yupia has decreed the diverse claims of the plaintiffs in the suits totalling a sum of Rs.326,71,63,47 3/- (Rupees three hundred twenty six crores seventy one lakhs sixty three thousa nd four hundred and seventy three) only.

3. It is the common case of the parties that Money Suit Nos.2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2007 were filed in the Court of the learned Deputy Com missioners of different Districts of the State of Arunachal Pradesh under the pr ovisions of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1945. Th e learned Deputy Commissioners of the Districts being impleaded as a defendant i n each of the suits, all the suits got eventually transferred to the Court of th e Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Yupia and were acco rdingly disposed of in terms of the decrees, as noticed above.

4. The claim of the plaintiffs (Respondent No.4 in each of the wr it appeals) in the suits were based on execution of contracts for transportation of food grains from different FCI Godowns in the State of Arunachal Pradesh to the designated PDS Centres in the State. The plaintiffs, in the suits filed, cla imed due execution of the contract works and, hence, their entitlement to the co ntracted amounts at the rates approved. According to the plaintiffs, their bills were duly scrutinized and approved by the authorities of the State of Arunachal Pradesh i.e. defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7 in the suits which were also confirmed by the defendant Nos.3 and 4 i.e. the General Manager (Senior Regional Manager), F CI, Regional Office, Guwahati and Area Manager (District Manager), FCI, North La khimpur. (Reference to the defendants is as in M.S. No.2/2007 and is made illust ratively in respect of the other suits.)

5. It may be noticed at this stage that the relief sought for in each of the suits was for a decree for the amount claimed against the defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7. No relief against the FCI or the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. of ficers of the FCI were claimed by the plaintiffs.

6. The defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 filed written statements in the suits wherein the claims made by the plaintiffs were virtually admitted. The de fendant Nos.5, 6 and 7, however, stated that payments, though due to the plainti ffs, could not be made on account of paucity of funds due to non-release of \Hil l Transport Subsidy\ by the FCI since 2004.

7. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suits also filed a joint writt en statement stating that the bills of the plaintiffs were forwarded to the Regi onal Office at Guwahati for super-checking. Accordingly, such bills were super-c hecked and forwarded to the concerned District Offices for release of payments b y the State authorities.

8. The learned Trial Court, on due consideration of the case plea ded by the plaintiffs and the admissions contained in the written statements fil ed by the two sets of defendants, as noticed above, disposed of all the suits in question by following the procedure under Order XV, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, each of the suits were decreed for the amount claimed. In the judgments, the learned Trial court after directing payment of the amount due to the plaintiffs by the defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 within a period of two mo nths, however, made the following observations :- \However, it is also observed and hoped that the Food Corporation of I ndia, shall ensure to reimburse the said amount paid by the State Government to the plaintiffs on production of payment vouchers by the State Government\. Trial Court in the Money Suit No.2 of 2007 :- Accordingly, following decree was passed by the learned \It is hereby decreed and ordered that the claimed amount of Rs.58,11,54,090/- ( Rupees fifty eight crore eleven lakhs fifty four thousand and ninety) only by th e plaintiff in the instant suit coming on the date for disposal shall be paid to the plaintiff within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the c ertified copy of this decree/order. The payment to the plaintiff by the defendan t Nos.5, 6 and 7 shall be routed through this Court. It is also ordered that in the event of failure to pay the decreed amount within the period of two (2) mont hs, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this suit to the date of realization of the said sum\ . uits were also passed by the learned Trial Court. Similar decrees for different amounts claimed in other s

9. The aforesaid decrees were put to challenge before the learned Singl e Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution in the writ petitions filed by the present appellants. Two principal grounds were urged in support of the challeng e made. The first is with regard to the power and jurisdiction of the Court of t he learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Yupia to hear and dispo se of civil suits arising within the territories of the State of Arunachal Prade sh. In this regard, the principal contention made was to the effect that no such power can be understood to have been vested by law in the learned Trial Court. The second ground urged is that though the decrees passed in the suits are again st the FCI, the FCI was not made a party defendant in the suit. The impleadment of the two officers of the FCI as defendant Nos.3 and 4 does not tantamount to i mpleading the FCI, a statutory body, as a principal defendant in the suit. Yet b y the impugned decrees, an obligation has been cast on the FCI as the payments o rdered by the decrees being under the \Hill Transport Subsidy\, the amounts paid by the State Government to the contractors like the plaintiffs are reimburseabl e by the FCI to the State Government.

10. The learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 8.5.2 008, after a long and elaborate consideration of the first issue, came to the c onclusion that the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Yupi a was competent in law to hear and dispose of Civil Suits. Hence, the decrees pa ssed cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and authority of law. A reading o f the judgment, however, does not indicate that any positive finding with regard to the second issue was recorded by the learned Single Judge in the judgment un der challenge in the present appeals.

11. We have heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Additional Solicitor Ge neral appearing on behalf of the appellant-FCI, Mr. N. Dutta, learned Advocate G eneral, Arunachal Pradesh appearing for the State Respondents and Shri Krishnama ni, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 (Plaintiffs) in eac h of the appeals.

12. At the very outset, Shri Pathak, learned Additional Solicitor General has made a statement before the Court that the point with regard to the power and jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessi ons Judge (FTC), Yupia to hear and dispose of Civil Suits in the State of Arunac hal Pradesh will not be urged by him for the purpose of the present appeals. How ever, the learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that the aforesaid stand may not be understood to be an abandonment of the said plea and the appell ants reserve the right to raise the said question in any subsequent or connected proceeding if the occasion so arises. The aforesaid stand taken by the learned Additional Solicitor Ge neral truncates the scope of the appeals under consideration to a considerable d egree. It is the aforesaid truncated version of the appeals that will required t o be considered by us for the present.

13. Shri Pathak, learned Additional Solicitor General, has urged t hat a reading of the decrees passed by the learned Trial Court discloses that an obligation has been cast on the FCI to reimburse the sums that have become paya ble by the State Government to the plaintiffs-contractors under the decrees. Suc h obligation, according to the leaned counsel, has arisen on account of the fact that the payments ordered by the decrees are covered by the \Hill Transport Sub sidy Scheme\ under which the FCI is duty bound to reimburse the payment made to the carriage contractors by the State authorities. Therefore, FCI was a necessar y party to the suits; yet the FCI was not impleaded as a defendant in any of the suits. In this regard, Shri Pathak has further submitted that the impleadment o f the two officers of the FCI i.e. the General Manager (Senior Regional Manager) , FCI, Regional Office, Guwahati and Area Manager (District Manager), FCI, North Lakhimpur as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the suits will not tantamount to implead ing the FCI as a defendant. In the absence of the FCI as a party defendant in th e suits, the impugned decrees could not have been passed, contends the learned A dditional Solicitor General.

14. Shri Pathak has further contended that the proceedings in each of the suits had been concluded by the learned Trial Court in undue haste which would be evident from the fact that the learned Trial Court proceeded in the ma tter without framing any issue and without recording any evidence and, in-fact, had passed the judgment in each of the eight suits on the same day after conclus ion of the arguments. Shri Pathak has further submitted that in Money Suit Nos.2 /2007, 4/2007, 6/2007, 7/2007 and 9/2007 the plaintiff was not the aggrieved con tractor but was a mere power of attorney holder of the contractor. The power of attorney was not proved in the suits. That apart, according to Shri Pathak, in M oney Suit No.2 of 2007, the claim made was in respect of three different contrac ts and, therefore, there has been a misjoinder of causes of action. Shri Pathak has further submitted that same is the position in Money Suit Nos.4, 6, 7 and 9 of 2007.

15. Shri Pathak has further submitted that the obligation cast on the FCI to reimburse to the State Government the payments that will be required to be made to the contractors under the decrees, in the last resort, give rise t o a dispute between the FCI and the State Government. In terms of the judgment o f the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission Limited -Vs.- City and Indust ial Development Corporation, Maharastra Ltd. reported in (2007) 7 SCC 39, such a dispute is required to be referred and resolved by the Committee of Disputes co nstituted in terms of the order of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. In this regard, Shri Pathak has also placed materials before the Court to show that the entitlement of the State Government to reimbursement of the amount covered by t he decrees has been examined by a Committee of Secretaries which has made its fi nal recommendations and the matter is now pending before the competent authority . In such circumstances, Shri Pathak has further submitted that the matter shoul d be allowed to be resolved by the process already undertaken.

16. Shri N. Dutta, learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh has submitted that the amounts due to the contractors under the decrees passed by t he learned Trial Court in the present group of cases has to be reimbursed to the State Government by the FCI. On its own the State Government is not in a positi on to make any payment under the decrees. In this regard, Shri Dutta has pointed out that there has been a practice of making available rolling advances which, on being adjusted, leads to further advances for payment to the contractors. Shr i Dutta has also pointed out that presently the aforesaid practice has been stop ped on the ground that a huge amount of money i.e. Rs.139 crores has already bee n over-paid under the Hill Transport Subsidy Scheme which needs to be adjusted i n the first instance. Shri Dutta has also pointed out that from the records made available to him, which had been offered for scrutiny by the Court, that the en tire matter has been examined by the Committee of Secretaries of the Government of India. However, on account of pendency of the present appeals, no final decis ion has been taken. Shri Dutta has also submitted that in so far as the present cases are concerned, it is the stand of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, as already taken in the written statements filed, that the amount claimed by the co ntractors is due and payable and the over-paid amount, if any, do not relate to the present contractors (plaintiffs). At best such amount is relatable to earlie r contractors and, therefore, the recovery, if any, has to be made from such con tractors and not against the bills of the present contractors (plaintiffs). Acco rding to Shri Dutta, such bills have been duly verified and cleared by the State of Arunachal Pradesh as well as the competent authorities of the FCI. In such c ircumstances, according to the learned Advocate General, the plaintiffs are enti tled to the amounts claimed which, however, cannot be paid unless money is recei ved from the FCI. The whole process has remained blocked on account of pendency of these appeals inspite of favourable recommendations made by the Committee of Secretaries, submits the learned Advocate General.

17. Shri Krishnamani, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs (Respondent No.4 in each of the appeals) has submitted that the judgments passe d by the learned Trial Court leading to the decrees in question are judgments ba sed on admission made by the defendants in the suits. Drawing the attention of t he Court to the plaints filed, which are available on record, the learned counse l has urged that no relief has been claimed against FCI in any of the suits. The refore, FCI is not a necessary party. Shri Krishnamani has further urged that no where in the judgments any direction has been issued to the FCI to reimburse any amount to the State Government and the entire obligation under the decrees is t hat of the State Government. There is no operative decree against the FCI to ena ble the said body to maintain any challenge to the decrees passed. Shri Krishnam ani has further contended that the judgments of the learned Trial Court on the b asis of which impugned decrees have been passed being judgments based on the adm ission of the defendants, no issues were required to be framed in the suits nor any witness was required to be examined in the proceedings of the suit. The defe ndants having admitted the claim of the plaintiffs, the learned counsel has urge d, no fault can be found with the impugned decrees. The learned counsel has, the refore, contended that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the writ petitions challenging the decrees should be dismissed cannot be flawed and in th e facts and circumstances of the present cases no other conclusion is warranted. It is further submitted that the present appeals deserve to be dismissed leavin g the plaintiffs with the remedy of obtaining relief under the decrees in accord ance with law.

18. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties with u tmost care and caution. We have perused the plaints filed and the two sets of wr itten statements filed by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on one hand and the defenda nt Nos. 5, 6 and 7 on the other hand. No relief whatsoever has been claimed agai nst the FCI in the suits. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the officials of the FCI were impleaded in the suits as they were involved in the scrutiny of the bil ls of the contractor and they have approved the same for payment. Without such a pproval the entitlement of the contractor to payment could not have been establi shed under the practice/norms in force. If no relief had been claimed against FC I in the suits, it is elementary that the FCI was not a necessary party to the s uits and, hence, was not impleaded as a defendant in any of the suits in questio n.

19. We have also perused the written statements filed by the defen dants in the suits. Reading the same, we find that there is a clear admission on the part of the defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7 that the amounts claimed in the suits though due and payable, payment has not been forthcoming due to paucity of funds . A reading of the written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 reveal that the Regional Office of the FCI had (cid:28)super-checked\ the bills of the plainti ffs as forwarded by the District Officers and on completion of such (cid:28)super-check ing (cid:29) the same were sent to the District Offices for release of payments by the S tate Government. If the defendants in the suits had admitted the claims of the plaintiffs, though the learned Trial Court was entitled to dispose of the suit b y proceeding under the provisions of Order XII Rule 6, it had proceeded under Or der XV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same will have no material bea ring in the cases in hand as the defendants against whom decree was prayed for h ad admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. If the suits were capable of being disp osed of under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no serious fault can be found with the learned Trial Court in not framing any issue or in not rec ording any evidence of the parties. Pronouncement of the judgment immediately af ter conclusion of the arguments and that too by a Fast Track Court cannot be a l egitimate ground for any grievance. Rather, adoption of such a course of action, if possible, has to be appreciated.

20. The objections raised by the FCI with regard to the plaintiff in Money Suit No.2 of 2007, i.e. the plaintiff is not the contractor but a power of attorney holder of the contractor can be understood by us to be a valid obje ction. A reading of the plaint discloses that the power of attorney holder had e xecuted the contract work on being authorized to do so by the contractor who was awarded the same. In-fact, it is the power of attorney holder who had executed the contract agreement with the State Government. While it is correct that the c laim raised in the suit pertains to three different contracts, the amount due un der each contract is distinct and identifiable and the amount claimed in the sui t is a composite one. No objection had been raised by the defendants in the suit s against whom decrees have been prayed for. The objection of the FCI in that re gard is not required to be gone into for the reasons hereinafter discussed.

21. More important of all that has been discussed above is the ques tion as to whether the decree passed by the learned Trial Court in each of the s uits binds the appellants FCI in any manner and legally obliges it to perform an y act. In other words, can the decrees sought to be challenged be understood to be operative and binding against the FCI. Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure defines a decree i

22. n the following terms :- (cid:28)Section 2(2) : (cid:28)decree means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of t he parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the reject ion of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but sh all not include - (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an orde r, or (b) any other of dismissal for default. Explanation - A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudicatio n completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final (cid:29)

23. A decree is required to have the following essential elements t o be a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. Firstly, there has to be an adjudication in a suit; such adjudication must have determined the righ ts of the parties with regard to any of the matters in controversy and lastly, s uch determination must be conclusive [Chase Bright Steel Ltd. -Vs.- Shantaram Sh ankar Sawant reported in (1994) 4 SCC 89)].

24. The operative part of the judgment of the learned Trial Court extra cted in an earlier paragraph of this order indicates that what has been expresse d by the learned Trial Court is a hope and wish that the FCI would reimburse the State Government. The terms of the identical decrees passed by the learned Tria l Court, which has also been extracted, indicate that it is only the defendant N os.5, 6 and 7 who have been directed to pay to the plaintiffs the amount covered by the decrees. There is no direction, either in the judgments or in the decree s following the judgments, to the FCI to reimburse any amount to the State Gover nment after the State Government pays to the plaintiffs the amounts covered by t he decrees. The liability of the FCI to make any such reimbursement, therefore, has not been formally adjudicated upon by the learned Trial Court nor has the ri ght of the State Government and the corresponding obligation of the FCI with reg ard to any reimbursement been conclusively determined by the learned Trial Court . In such circumstances, the Court has to understand that the decrees under chal lenge in the present appeals are not effective decrees against the FCI and the s ame do not oblige the FCI to make any reimbursement to the State Government. If that be so, the very foundation of the challenge made by the FCI against the dec rees in question has necessarily to fall through. We, therefore, arrive at the s ame conclusion as recorded by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitions s hould be dismissed though for reasons different. Accordingly, all the appeals ar e liable to be dismissed, which we hereby do. However, in the facts and circumst ances, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.

25. Before parting with the record, we would like to observe that we were addressed at some length by the learned Additional Solicitor General as well as the learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh with regard to the on-go ing process of resolving the controversy with regard to the liability of the FCI to reimburse the State Government for money to be paid under the decrees in que stion. However, we do not think that in view of the issues arising before us in the present cases and our views as recorded above, we should enter into any of t he aforesaid areas. We, accordingly, decline to go into any further question/que stions that may coincidentally arise or be connected with the issues arising in the cases before us and deem it appropriate to leave the parties to work out the ir remedies as provided by law.