PATNA, India, Aug. 21 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 22:

The present appeal has been filed under Clause-X, Appendix-E of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court Rules by the appellants who are original respondent nos.4 and 5 in the writ petition. The appellants are aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to make payment of Rs.28,45,790/- to the original petitioner.

2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:

2.1 The present opponent no.1 is the original writ petitioner which had preferred the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the learned Single Judge in which the writ petitioner prayed that the writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to make the payment in lieu of supply done pursuant to the work order dated 05.05.2022 to the tune of Rs.43,60,498/- along with interest @ 18% and other expenses incurred upon maintaining the materials at the site including refund of security deposit and refund of illegally deducted amount.

2.2 It is the case of the writ petitioner that the respondent no.5, i.e., the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat of a particular district floated expression of interest in the Gem Portal. The petitioner participated in the same and thereafter the respondent awarded the work order dated 05.05.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that, as per the said work order, the petitioner had to supply 48 pieces of Wheel Barrows and 6 pieces of Hooper Tippers. It is further the case of the petitioner that the work order was generated on 05.05.2022 and on the basis of the said work order, the petitioner had purchased 6 pieces of Hooper Tippers and the other materials. Thereafter the concerned respondents have initially accepted 4 pieces of Hooper Tippers and 48 pieces of Wheel Barrows and an assurance was given to purchase the balance 2 Hooper Tippers. However, the respondents did not fulfil the said promise. In fact, as per the terms and conditions of the work order, the petitioner purchased all the 6 Hooper Tippers and also got registered all the 6 vehicles in the name of the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, respondent no.5.

2.3 It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner made several representations before the respondent authorities and requested them to take the delivery of the remaining 2 vehicles and make the payment as per the work order, despite which no response was given by the respondent authorities. The petitioner, therefore, preferred the captioned writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

2.4 The learned Single Judge partly allowed the petition whereby the direction has been issued to the present appellants/original respondents to pay an amount of Rs.28,45,790/- incurred by the petitioner for purchase of the vehicles as per the terms and conditions of the bid documents. So far as the other prayers of the petitioner are concerned, the learned Single Judge did not grant such prayers.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxNTkjMjAyNSMxI04=-JKGoa1z7o68=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.