M/S.SPEEDCRAFTS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a manufacturer of Road Construction Machineries/Pursuant to tender issued by the Road Construction Department, petitioner had tendered and Purchase Order was placed for supply of Bitumen Sprayers. These Bitumen Sprayers had to be manufactured as per orders. After supply of three Bitumen Sprayers, out of four, there were some differences amongst the parties. The petitioner asserts it was ready for supply after inspection by the respondent in January, 1995 but delivery was not taken. This again was as a consequence of some dispute amongst the parties. Ultimately, lot of correspondences were exchanged and by Annexure -9, being letter dated 15.2.2006, petitioner agreed to refund the entire money, which had been received after inspection without raising any claim for loss caused for holding back the machine for over ten years. This was as a full and final settlement. This was, responded to by the Executive Engineer by Annexure -9/A, dated 28.2.2006 wherein they agreed to accept the payment as full and final settlement provided it was made immediately.

(2.) IN the offer, as made by the petitioner, to refund they had categorically shown that they were making an adjustment of Rs. 19,551/ - against some alleged amount due. Immediately thereafter payments were duly made by the petitioner. After one year the respondent then instituted certificate proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs. 28,37,567/ -. Petitioner asserts that this is an unlawful pressure tactics, as applied by the respondent. Apart from other, it would be seen that four certificate proceedings were initiated for the same amount though the claim was singular and the notices showing different case numbers for the four certificates are also part of Annexure -10 series. The petitioner submits that the entire proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that apart from Rs. 19,551/ - the rest of the certificate amount reflects the interest which the Government thinks it is entitled to suit for late refund of the money. Thus essentially the question is whether the Government demand of interest by way of compensation for delayed refund can be a Public Demand or not.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.