ABDUL RASSAK Vs. NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the manager of a firm, which is engaged in the supply of electrical goods to various municipalities and other local authorities. Pursuant to a purchase order issued on 5.2.2008 by the 1st respondent-Neyyattinkara Municipality, the petitioner supplied various electrical goods to the said respondent-Municipality, who received the goods and acknowledged the same, it is averred. The petitioner had prepared different invoices with respect to the goods supplied as per invoice dated 12.2.2008 for Rs. 4,85,407.36, invoice dated 12.3.2008 for Rs. 2,77,385.63 and invoice dated 24.3.2008 for Rs. 1,30,200/-. Certain part payments were made by the 1st respondent and there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,92,992.99 and in spite of various requests made by the petitioner, the respondent-Municipality has not paid and cleared off such outstanding amounts, it is averred. The petitioner has sent several reminders including those as in Ext. P1. It is in the conspectus these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

(2.) The respondent-Municipality has filed a counter affidavit dated 31.8.2011. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Municipality had invited tenders for buying spare parts of street lights, after allocating Rs. 7 lakhs under the People's Planning Programme, for the year 2007-2008 and tender was confirmed in the name of the petitioner as he was the lowest bidder. When the supply order was given, there occurred an increase of Rs. 1,44,721/- in the original amount allocated and that the Municipality had informed the petitioner to take back the goods supplied in excess of Rs. 1,44,721.49 in the year 2008 itself as per Ext. R1(a) letter dated 2.7.2008. It is further stated that the total amount sanctioned by the Municipal Council was only Rs. 7 lakhs, whereas the petitioner firm had supplied electrical goods worth Rs. 8,44,542.98 and therefore, the outstanding amount is only Rs. 1,44,721.49 as stated above and not Rs. 1,92,992.99 as alleged in the Writ Petition. It is further stated that the Municipality by a mistake had stated in the reply letter dated 21.2.2011 issued in response to the lawyer's notice sent by the petitioner that steps will be taken by the Municipality to pay the amount as soon as administrative sanction is accorded by the Municipal Council, etc.

(3.) The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, wherein it is stated that when the respondents approached by issuing by Ext. R1 (a) letter 2.7.2008, the petitioner had stated that he was ready to take back the goods immediately on receipt of Ext. R1(a) letter. But the response given to the petitioner by the respondent-Municipality was that the electrical goods supplied by the petitioner were already utilized by the Municipality and, therefore, the payment for the entire goods supplied by the petitioner would be made. The petitioner also relies on Ext. P2 letter dated 21.2.2011 issued by the respondent-Municipality (produced in the reply affidavit), wherein it is stated that the administrative sanction obtained for the transaction in question was only for Rs. 7 lakhs for the year 2007-2008 and that the purchase order of the goods supplied by the petitioner involved payment of an excess amount of Rs. 1,44,721/- and that for sanction of the excess amount of Rs. 1,44,721/-, steps for getting such approval has already been in motion and that immediately on getting the approval from the respondent-Municipal Council, steps would be taken to pay the said amount to the petitioner, etc.