PRINTING WORLD Vs. DIRECTOR TEXT BOOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed by a Proprietorship Firm represented through its proprietress, inter alia, praying for issuance of a direction to the Opp. Party to hand over two Bank Drafts i.e. the Draft for Rs. 4,70,613/ dated 7.7.2003 and another for Rs. 10,587/ dated 7.7.2003 drawn on the State Bank of India, Cuttack to the petitioner towards payment due to him for undertaking printing job of Text Books.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the Opp. Party Director, Text Book Production and Marketing, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, invited tenders for printing of Text Books for Class Ill to Class VII. The petitioner, who carries on business of printing submitted tender along with several other Printers for the work of printing of the said Text Books. The rate offered by the petitioner was considered and the Opp. Party placed orders, with different printers, including the petitioner. After observing. all paraphernalia, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Opp. Party on 10th July, 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner was allotted the printing work in instalments. The case of the petitioner is that it sincerely and sacrosanctly completed the printing work allotted to it, and no complaint was ever made by the Opp. Party with regard to the standard of printing or with regard to any other breach of terms of the contract. After completion of the work, the petitioner submitted its bills and the said bills were partly cleared up and payment to the extent of 46% was made. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the Bank Drafts for payment of balance 54% of the Bills are ready, the Opp. Party for no rhyme or reason is not handing over the same to the petitioner for which the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court for redressal of its grievance.

(3.) MR . Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the other hand, submitted that as the notice calling for explanation as per Annexure E/1 did not contain any enclosure, it was not possible for the petitioner to submit its explanation and the petitioner promptly replied by its letter dated 2.9.2002 and requested the opposite party to supply all the enclosures basing upon which the allegations were levelled so as to enable the petitioner to submit its reply. According to Mr. Lal, though such a letter was issued, the petitioner was not supplied copies of the said enclosures and therefore, the question of giving reply by the petitioner did not arise. The allegations, according to Mr. Lal, are blatantly false and frivolous having no basis.