BARRACKPORE SUPPLIER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. In spite of notices none appeared on behalf of the respondents to oppose the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that in accordance with the requisition made by the respondent No. 4, the petitioner manufactured and supplied certain furniture to the respondent No. 4 and submitted a final bill dated 20.5.1992 for a sum of Rs. 57,000.00 towards the value of the goods manufactured and supplied by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4. The petitioner made several representations and visits to the office of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for payment of the aforesaid bill but the bill remained unpaid. The learned Advocate for the petitioners referred to letter dated 20.11.1995 whereform it appears that the respondent No. 4 wrote to the petitioner stating that the respondent authorities were not in a position to release the outstanding payment at that point of time but they are trying their best to arrange the funds and that the petitioner should bear with them for some more time. The petitioner's learned Advocate referred to another letter dated 03.12.1995 wherefrom it appears the respondent No. 4 wrote to the petitioner stating that the respondent authorities have contacted their Accounts Department and have been informed that as per the records of the respondent authorities the total outstanding amount is Rs. 50,023.00 after deduction of income-tax and performance guarantee. In the said letter the respondent No. 4 also mentioned that "No Payment Certificate" would be required before the question of further payment can be considered and that the respondent authorities are passing through a very difficult financial condition and regretted their inability to release any payment even if the same is considered to be due to the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits in spite of demanding justice by a letter dated 12.05.1997, the respondent authorities have not till today released any payment in favour of petitioner.

(2.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in such circumstances the respondent should be directed to make immediate payment of the amount due to the petitioner. It appears that the writ petition was filed in the year 1997. It further appears that the writ petitioner has filed an affidavit-in- reply but there is no affidavit-in-opposition on record. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition was served upon the petitioner, but it appears that the affidavit-in-opposition has not been filed on behalf of the respondents in Court. However, none appeared to oppose the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner in spite of notices.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have admitted in their letter dated 03.12.1995 that according to the said respondents an amount of Rs. 50,023.00 is payable to the petitioner and none has appered to oppose the writ petitioner at the time of final hearing and as such, in the interest of justice, this Court should direct respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to release the admitted amount in favour of the petitioner along with interest at a proper rate. It appears from the writ petition that the petitioner has claimed an interest of 18% p.a. on the outstanding dues payable by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to the petitioner. The petitioner's learned Advocate cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004(3) SCC 553 and submitted that in the instant case if the petitioner proceeds on the basis of the said admitted amount then there is no need of any oral evidence in such a case. The learned Advocate for the petitioner also submitted that the respondent No. 2 is an instrumentality or agency of Government and it is expected that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 should act fairly, justly and reasonably. The learned Advocate for the petitioner referred to paragraphs 51 and 52 of the said reported case. The relevant portions of the said reported case as referred to by the petitioner's learned Advocate is quoted below: