STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Vs. LIKHA SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh assisted by Mr. NJ Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 25.1.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.628(A)/2016. Through the said order, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant herein to consider the claim of the respondent in the manner as has been indicated in the operative portion of the said order.

(3.) The brief facts are that the respondent herein, who was appointed as a carriage contractor by the State of Arunachal Pradesh for the period between 2003 to 2005 for executing the carriage contract for transportation of various food grains and other PDS commodities from the FCI Godowns to the different Public Distribution Centres of Lower Subansiri District, had submitted bills for the works carried out and, in respect of the same, since, according to the private respondent, the same were not paid, the instant writ petition was filed seeking appropriate direction. In the said writ petition, the appellants herein, who were the respondents to the writ petition, had taken up the contention that since the transported food materials were made under the supervision of the Food Corporation of India (for short, 'FCI'), and the bills were submitted to the FCI, the appellants herein was required to verify the bills before the payments were to be made and a contention was also urged with regard to lack of fund in view of the Central Government not having reimbursed the fund. In that light, the learned Single Judge having adverted to the contentions, was of the opinion that the stand of the appellant herein would not be justified and, in that light, had directed the respondents to take up the issue of payment of pending bills as per the bills submitted, taking into consideration the opinion obtained from the learned Advocate General and the orders of the Department, and to pass appropriate orders within the time frame as indicated. The appellant, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this appeal.