High Court · 2012

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. B Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J Handiqu e, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. M Chetia, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

2. Invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the instant writ petition has been filed praying for issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order etc., directing the respondent authorities to pay the supply bill amounting to Rs.1,62,866/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Six) only due to the petiti oner by the respondents within a time frame.

3. The petitioners’ case in brief is that respondent No.4/Jagaran Self Help Group (SHG for short) issued an order on 06.07.2011 in favour of the petitioner No.1 to supply handloom materials like shuttle frame, handloom shuttle, aluminu m pulley, reed hook heald stick etc. As per the said supply order the necessary supply materials were to be supplied as per the specification of the drawing and quality prescribed by the Handloom and Textiles Department. It was also stipula ted therein that after receipt of the supply materials the departmental technica l committee is to examine the quality and after receiving the committee’s approv al report, the payment is to be made subject to approval by the Superintendent, Handloom and Textiles, Jonai. The petitioner in pursuant to the said supply orde r dated 06.07.2011 duly supplied handloom materials as per the specification pre scribed in the supply order which were duly received by the respondent No.4 and distributed amongst its beneficiaries after observing the necessary formalities.

4. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted the bill amount of Rs.1,62,866/- ( Rupees One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Six) only before the respondent No.4 on 20.11.2011. However when the bill amount was not paid after a lapse of 2(two) months, the petitioner had submitted a petition on 11.01.2012 b efore the respondent No.4 praying for clearance of the supply bill. In response to the petition submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No.4 vide letter dat ed 20.01.2012 intimated the petitioner that they have processed the bill of the petitioner and have submitted the same before the respondent No.3 for necessary approval but the respondent No.3 is not according approval and that is the reaso n why they are unable to clear the bill. On coming to know about the same, the p etitioner approached the respondent No.3, praying for according approval for pay ment of the bill amount to the petitioner. However when their approaching the re spondent No.3 also evoked no response, the petitioner being aggrieved submitted a petition on 27.01.2012 before the Director of Handloom and Textiles, Assam, re spondent No.2 praying for taking necessary action for payment of the aforesaid b ill amount. But till date, no single farthing has been paid to the petitioner, h ence, the instant writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 w 5. herein it has been contended that as per guidelines of the scheme prepared by th e Government, the SHGs are to purchase looms and accessories and the procedure f or payment under the said scheme is subject to verification by the District Leve l Technical Committee constituted by the Government vide Notification No.HTS 171 /2011/6 dated 15/10/2011. It has further been stated that it is only after appro val from the technical committee against the supplied material, based upon the r esolution of Jagaran SHG for releasing payment to the suppliers the Superintende nt of Handloom and Textiles, can pass withdrawal order of funds for releasing pa yment to the suppliers.

6. At paragraph 7 of the counter, it has been contended that the writ petit ioner did not supply all the materials in time to the Jagaran SHG as per specifi cation prescribed in the supply order dated 06.07.2011. The respondent No.2 has also denied the fact that the Jagaran SHG after completing necessary formalities had distributed the materials amongst its beneficiaries since the District Leve l Committee on 26.03.2012 had examined all the looms and accessories supplied by the petitioner as per supply order dated 06.07.2011 and it found that the looms and accessories supplied by the petitioner were not according to the specificat ion prescribed and the supply was also incomplete and accordingly the President/ Secretary SHG, Jonai was intimated by respondent No.3 while enclosing the minute s of the District Level Technical Committee held on 26.03.2012 vide letter dated

04.04.2012.

7. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the allegatio ns made hereinabove submitted that an affidavit has been filed on behalf of resp ondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 wherein it has been contended at paragraph 7 as thus: (cid:28)That thereafter on 26.03.2012, the technical committee examined the fly shuttle loom and accessories supplied by the writ petitioners and found that th e 5 looms were not as per the specification of the department more particularly committee found that 5 middle post were 2 (cid:29)X3 (cid:29) which actually be 4 (cid:29)X4 (cid:29) as per sup ply order. In this respect the respondents herein state that the looms and acces sories were distributed amongst the beneficiaries on 16.11.2011 and some benefic iaries for their convenience had changed the size of the middle post of the loom , however after the report submitted by the technical committee the supplier/wri t petitioners had again supplied the aforesaid middle post of the 5 looms to the beneficiaries as per the specification of the supply order. It is also observed by the technical committee that the respondent herein could not be able to show the committee the cycle reams to be fitted in the charkhas. With regard to the observation of the committee that the respondents herein states that after fitti ng the cycle reams in the charkhas it was difficult on the part of the beneficia ries to brought the same for inspection as the same may have damaged if it is ta ken away from one place to another. The respondents herein like to mention that all the accessories along with the fly shuttle looms were distributed among the beneficiaries and they have acknowledged the receipt of the same. (cid:29)

8. Referring to Paragraph 7 as quoted hereinabove, Mr. Gogoi has submitted that the writ petitioners have supplied the materials as far back as in the mont h of November, 2011. On the otherhand, after filing of the writ petition on 16.0 3.2012; the Technical Committee examined the materials supplied by the petitione r only on 26.03.2012 i.e., after about 4(four) months of supply of the materials , whereas as per Government scheme Technical Committee is to examine and verify the materials on the date of supply of the materials to the SHG. As the Technica l Committee examined the materials after 4/5 months of supply hence 5 numbers of looms were not found as per the specification of the supply order which has bee n made clear by respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 at paragraph 7 quoted hereinabove.

9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the statements made in the writ petition and the counter affidavits alongwith t he annexures appended thereto. In view of the statements made on oath at paragra ph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6, in the c onsidered opinion of this Court, the authority now cannot take the stand that th e writ petitioner failed to supply the materials as per specification, hence the petitioner is not entitled for the payment, inasmuch as, it was the duty on the part of the respondent authority to constitute the Technical Committee immediat ely and to verify the materials supplied by the petitioner on that very day itse lf. For the reasons given above and in the facts and circumstances of the ca 10. se, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to take up the case of the petitione r at an early date for making payment of the amount of Rs.1,62,866/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Six) only for supply of materia ls (shuttle frame, handloom shuttle, aluminum pulley, reed hook heald stick etc) . As the petitioner is waiting since November, 2011, it is further directed that the whole exercise would be completed within a period of 8(eight) weeks from th e date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

11. shall be no order as to costs. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. However, there