The High Court · 2023
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A No. 301 of 2022 Bank of India, through its Zonal Manager, having its office at Zonal Office, 2nd Floor, S.R. Mansion, Shastri Nagar, Bank More, P.O. Dhansar, P.S. - Bankmore, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand 2. The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, at Zonal Office, 2nd Floor, S.R. Mansion, Shastri Nagar, Bank More, P.O. Dhansar, P.S. - Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 3. The Chief Manager, Bank of India, at Zonal Office, 2nd Floor, S.R. Mansion, Shastri Nagar, Bank More, P.O.-Dhansar, P.S. Dhanbad, Jharkhand Bankmore, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand ...............Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. M/s. Computer Era Consultancy, representedthrough its Proprietor namely Amarjeet, aged about 33 years, son of Sri Ambika Prasad, Resident of - At- 445, Sen Villa, P.P. Compound (Near Sen Medical. Hall), P.O. Doranda, P.S. Hindpiri, District – Ranchi ........... Petitioner/Respondent 2. Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, its Municipal Commissioner, having its office at-Luby Circular Road, JMADA Campus, P.O. + P.S. + District – Dhanbad. 3. The Municipal Commissioner, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, having its office at - Luby Circular Road, JMADA Campus, P.O. + P.S. + District – ..........Respondents Dhanbad --------------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant-Bank : Mr. Abdul Allam, Sr. Advocate For DMC Mr. A.K. Sahay, Advocate Mr. Asfia Sultana, Advocate : Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, Advocate ---------------
Decision
O R D E R 7th August 2023 M/s Computer Era Consultancy approached the writ Court with a prayer for payment of admitted dues. 2. The writ Court in its order dated 27th June 2022 noticed that there was no stipulation as to specification of Twin Dustbins in the supply order dated 8th May 2018 and the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation (in short, “DMC”) admitted receiving of 100 Twin Dustbins in two lots. 3. In the aforesaid background the writ Court has held as under: “Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into facts and circumstances of the case. The facts stated are not under 2 L.P.A No.301 of 2022 dispute, that pursuant to order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the Bank of India, the petitioner has made supply of 200 Twin Dustbins to the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation in two phases, which has been admitted by Dhanbad Municipal Corporation vide Letter under Reference No. 1817/DMC dated 30.04.2019 addressed to the Chief Manager, Bank of India, Circle Office, Shastri Nagar, Dhanbad. It is also not in dispute that for 100 Twin Dustbins, the Bank of India has paid Rs. 7,20,000/- to the petitioner vide Tax Invoice dated 24.10.2018. The question remains regarding payment of another 100 Twin Dusbins. On the basis of letter, which has never been appended or brought before this Court by respondents / Bank of India, they cannot defy the responsibility on the ground that :- (i) under corporate social responsibility, such payment cannot be enforced by the Court, and (ii) such conditions are there in the letter, which has never been complied by the petitioner, as the said letter / order dated 08.05.2018 -4- has not been appended by the Bank of India to satisfy this Court regarding terms and conditions. Though, the petitioner has not brought on record the work order, but in view of admission of Bank of India in counter-affidavit and part payment has already been made by the Bank to the petitioner, the work order is admitted. Since part payment has been made by the Bank and full supply has been admitted by the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, as such, the same is admitted dues of the petitioner before the Bank of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents/Bank is directed to pay the same to the petitioner within a reasonable time.” 4. Challenging the aforesaid direction of the writ Court, the Bank of India has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal on the ground that the proof of supply produced by M/s Computer Era Consultancy in the form of transport delivery challan was suspicious and therefore the writ Court was denuded of its powers to interfere in the matter. 5. This is not the law that in every case where a dispute on facts has been raised the writ Court shall stay its hands away and not entertain the writ petition. The judgment in “Gunwant Kaur Smt. and Ors. v. Municipal Committee Bhatinda and Ors.” (2004) 3 SCC 553 which has been taken note of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.” (2004) 3 SCC 553 lays down in clear terms that the writ Court is not denuded of its powers to examine the dispute sought to be raised by the respondent and wherever it is found that such dispute can be resolved without any strenuous exercise the writ Court must exercise its powers. 6. In “ABL International Ltd.” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held has under: “27. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal 3 L.P.A No.301 of 2022 principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition: (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable. 28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1].) And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction.” 7. From the records, we find that before the writ Court the following stand was taken by the Bank of India: “(vii)That it is stated that in spite of the said letter written to the petitioner regarding supply of remaining 100 pieces of Dustbins, the same was not supplied by the petitioner till 16.01.2019. In the circumstances, on 16.01.2019, the order for supply of Dustbins was cancelled and in this regard the Zonal Office of the respondents- Bank of India informed the same to the petitioner – M/s Computer Era Consultancy and it was also informed to them not supply/deliver remaining 100 pieces of Twin Dustbins. (viii) That it is stated that on 17.01.2019, the petitioner- M/s Computer Era Consultancy sent a letter vide No. CEC/02/19, dated 17.01.2019, regarding reminder of payment stating therein that the supply of twin dustbins are already supplied. (ix) That it is stated that on 07.02.2019, the petitioner- M/s. Computer Era Consultancy again sent a letter vide CEC/05/ 2019, mentioning therein that he had already supplied the dustbins and also attached Transport Delivery Challan dated 01.08.2018 and Installation Report dated 10.10.2018. (x) That it is stated that in reply of the letter dated 07.02.2019, the Dhanbad Zone of the Bank of India replied that the Zone neither received any letter regarding supply of the items till cancellation of the order nor installation report has been received. Hence, it was requested to enquire the matter and produce strict proof for the same. (xi) That it is stated that thereafter, the petitioner-M/s Computer Era Consultancy sent reminder letter for payment dated 26.02.2019, 05.03.2019, 31.03.2019 and 19.04.2019.” 8. There is no dispute that M/s Computer Era Consultancy made supply of 100 Twin Dustbins to the DMC and the appellant-Bank made 4 L.P.A No.301 of 2022 payment thereof. This is supply of second lot of 100 Twin Dustbins which according to the appellant-Bank was not made ready in time for supply by M/s Computer Era Consultancy. However, this remains a matter of record that the certifications dated 30th April 2019 and dated 30th August 2019 were issued by the DMC accepting supply of 100 Twin Dustbins in two lots. Now with reference to the aforesaid certifications issued by the DMC, the dispute sought to be raised by the Bank of India with reference to transport delivery challan must be held without any substance. The appellant-Bank seems to have raised another grievance that the dustbins supplied by M/s Computer Era Consultancy did not contain logo of “Bank of India” over all the dustbins. However, from the letter dated 30th August 2019 written by the Additional Municipal Commissioner at Dhanbad it appears that the quality of the dustbins supplied to Dhanbad Municipal Corporation by M/s Computer Era Consultancy has been found satisfactory. 9. Now in view of the aforesaid documentary evidence, the writ Court has rightly exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, L.P.A No 301 of 2022 is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) sudhir