EIT SERVICES PVT LTD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The disputes between the parties are now significantly narrowed. Reference may be had to our orders of 21/6/2023 and 23/6/2023. For convenience and in view of the order we propose to pass today, copies of these two past orders are appended to the present order.

(2.) The factual disputes that now emerge from the record are two: first, whether the actual takeover by the 1st Respondent at all locations was on 5/7/2022, or whether, as the Petitioners contend, they were asked to continue at some or all the locations after 5/7/2022. This will make a difference to the amount claimed by the Petitioners. It will equally make a difference to the defence canvassed by Mr Acharya even today, that once there was a takeover on 5/7/2022, no question arose of making payment for any period thereafter. This is a question of fact.

(3.) The second issue is about the deductions that have been made by the 1st Respondent for the period after 1/4/2022. Mr Acharya's contention is that the contractual competent authority was merely a certifying agency but was not the auditing agency or the agency or authority to decide what was or was not properly payable. He points out that in any case the contract itself stipulated a cap or a maximum that was payable. It is entirely conceivable, he submits, that within that cap, invoices as submitted may have been paid without an audit or certifying process, although he does not concede that position today. However, if there was any amount that is ordered by the Court to be payable thereafter, i.e., after the contract, then, according to Mr Acharya, any such amount was necessarily subject to a process of checking or auditing. Apart from anything else, he submits, this would be required in the interests of accountability and transparency because it should not happen that a private enterprise raises any bill in whatever amount and the Government is duty bound to pay the entire amount without checking or verification out of public funds. Mr Pandit contests this formulation on all counts and says the contract did not contemplate any second-level checking or auditing.