PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD Vs. AKAL PRINTMATICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 14.5.2003, vide which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondents No. 1 & 2writ petitioners, and quashed the orders, AnnexuresP2/A to P2/C, passed by the appellant-Board and directed them to refund the amount of excess penalty, deducted from the bills payable to petitioner No. 1, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of levy of penalty till date of payment. The needful was directed to be done within two months from the date of submission of the certified copy of the order.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership concern and petitioner No. 2 is the registered partner thereof. It is a small scale industry engaged in the business of printing, binding and supply of text books. The tenders submitted by it with the appellant-Board were accepted and thereafter, three separate agreements were executed between them, vide which they were to print 70,000 copies of 'Aao Hindi Seekhain-B', 1,80,000copies of 'Vigyan-4 (Punjabi)' and 35,000 copies of 'Vigyan (History)' for the academic Session of 1984-1985. After printing those books, three separate bills dated 19.11.1984 for Rs. 22,785/-; Rs. 30,901.40 paise and Rs. 6,649.35 paise were submitted. The books were not printed within the prescribed time and, as per the terms of the agreements, maximum penalty of 50% of the amount of the total bills could have been imposed. However,in respect of printing of first book, a penalty by way of 70% deduction from bill No. 1; in respect of printing of second book, penalty by way of deduction of 85% from the amount of bill No. 2, and in respect of printing of third book, penalty by way of deduction of 65%, out of total amount of bill No. 3, was imposed and they were informed about the deduction of that penalty, vide letters dated 10.6.1985, 3.8.1985 and 15.4.1985 (AnnexuresP2/A, P2/B and P/2C respectively). An objection with regard to the levy of special penalty was raised, vide letter dated 3.7.1985, by stating therein that there is no ground to levy special penalty. The appellants maintained that the penalty was imposed in accordance with the terms of the agreements.

(3.) In the writ petition, the petitioners prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Punjab School Education Board Act, 1969 (for brevity'the Act'), being unconstitutional, unfair, unjust and arbitrary. They prayed for quashing the impugned orders Annexures P2/A to P2/C, being illegal, void and not in accordance with law. They pleaded that, as per the terms and conditions of the agreements, the maximum penalty of 50% of the total bills could have been imposed and penalty in excess thereof was illegal. Thus, imposition of excess penalty of 15% to 35% is violative of those terms. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to them before passing the impugned orders. Those orders are patently absurd and are in clear violation of the agreements. Section 23 of the Act creates a bar to the jurisdiction of the Courts which prevents them from instituting any suit in the matter in any civil court. In response to their letter dated 3.7.1985 (Annexure P/3), they received reply dated 6.11.1985 (Annexure P/4) from the side of the appellants asserting that the action taken by them was in accordance with the agreements. Considering that decision to be an award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for brevity'the 1940 Act'), they were advised to file an application under Section 33 read with Sections 15 and 30 of the 1940 Act in the court for setting aside that award. Accordingly, they filed three separate identical applications in the court of Senior Civil Judge at Chandigarh on 6.12.1985. In reply to those applications, the appellants sought to invoke the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, by virtue of Section 23 of the Act and maintained that the decision (Annexure P/4) could not be considered to be an arbitration award, as the 1940 Act has no applicability to the administrative decision of the Board. In view of that reply, they filed an application for withdrawal of all the three cases and accordingly, challenged the provision of Section 23 of the Act, being unconstitutional by filing writ petition relatable to the instant appeal.