NEYVILLE ENGENEERING ASSOCIATES Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ Appeals Nos. 95 of 1997 and 96 of 1997, arise out of judgment and order dated 12.12.96 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 5083/96 and the connected Civil Rule No. 5085/96, thereby dismissing the petitions. Both these appeals are based on identical facts and involve common questions of law. Counsel for the parties in both the appeals are the same and the arguments advanced are also common. It is for those reasons that both these appeals are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) Few basic facts need be noted. The appellants are firms and individuals carrying on business of manufacture and supply of engineering tools and implements catering to' the needs of various Government Departments including the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Kamrup. On the eve of last general elections orders were placed on 12.4.96 for supply of goat proof fencing at the approved rate. The petitioners/appellants complied with the requirements and on completion of the supplies submitted their bills in triplicate, duly checked and verified and countersigned by the Executive Engineer in strict compliance of the procedure as laid down in the work orders. While 50% of the bill amount in respect of the work orders were paid to the appellants, the balance amount of 50% of the amount has not been paid despite making several requests and sending repeated reminders by them. This withholding of outstanding bills, according to the writ petitioners/appellants, is wholly illegal and arbitrary and discriminatory in face of the fact that whereas other firms have already been paid 90% of the total bill amount retaining only 10% by the office by way of security, the appellants despite having completed the works in question as per terms have been discriminated against and deprived of payment to the extent of 90% of their bill amounts, as made to other firms. The learned Single Judge dismissed their petitions mainly on the ground that it involved disputed questions of fact.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently urged that the learned Single Judge was wrongly carried away by the enquiry reports and the so-called disputed questions of fact. In fact, the enquiry reports do not refer to the work orders as issued to the appellants and carried out by them. It was also submitted that it is not merely a matter arising out of contractual obligations. What the petitioners/appellants complained was the discriminatory treatment meted out to them while payments to the extent of 90% of the bills were made to the other firms, the petitioners/appellants were not similarly treated although they had also completed the work to the entire satisfaction of the authorities. There was absolutely no complaint during the elections.