Rahul Distributors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects, as pointed out by the office, are ignored.

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay the interest at the rate of 18% from the date of actual bill presented by the petitioner till the date the amount towards the bill was paid to the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, as emerges from the writ petition is that the In-charge Medical officer, Primary Health Centre, Balumath, District- Latehar (the respondent no.4) issued work orders to M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur for supply of certain medicines to Primary Health Centre, Balumath, District- Latehar and Additional Primary Health Centre, Herang, Latehar. The petitioner, which is the stockiest/distributor of M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur, under its instruction, supplied the medicines to the respondent no. 4 and also to the Additional Primary Health Centre, Herang, Latehar on 28.03.2011 which was duly received in the office of the respondent no. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the bills on 30.06.2012 amounting to Rs.9,79,434/- and Rs.3,00,260/- before the respondent no. 4 and In-charge Medical officer, Additional Primary Health Centre, Herang, Latehar, respectively towards the supply of medicines as per work orders. As such, the petitioner claimed Rs.12,79,694/-, in total, to the respondent no. 4 and In-charge Medical Officer, Additional Primary Health Centre, Herang, Latehar, however, the petitioner was not paid the said bills. Finally, the respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 18.03.2013 informed the petitioner that the payment against the said supply was withheld due to paucity of fund and request was already made to the concerned department of the State Government for allotment of the same in order to make payment of the outstanding bills raised by the petitioner. The petitioner made several representations before the respondent no. 4 and also issued legal notice, but no payment was made to it. The petitioner also preferred writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 2962 of 2014 praying inter alia for directing the respondents to make payment of the outstanding bill along with interest at the rate of 18% for causing delay. During pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was paid Rs.12,54,185/-on 20.06.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition.

The petitioner by way of present writ petition has now claimed 18% interest over the amount paid to the petitioner against the supply of medicines made by it. The petitioner's contention is that it was asked to make supply at the instance of M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur in the year 2011 and in pursuance of which, the supply was made in that year itself. Thereafter the matter relating to the payment against the said supply by the petitioner remained pending and finally the payment was made to him by the respondents on 20.06.2016.

Under the said factual context, I am of the considered view that the prayer of the petitioner for directing the respondents to pay 18% interest from the date of supply of presentation of the bills towards the supply of medicine in question till the payment of the same was made to it, is a question of fact for which there is a requirement of laying of the evidence by both sides so as to test the veracity of the claim made by the petitioner.

In the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, "normally", the Court would not exercise such a discretion:

69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it.

69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration.

69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination.

69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.

The petitioner has failed to explain before this Court any exceptional circumstance for entertaining the money claim in the form of interest under extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court which otherwise is plenary in nature and as such I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition which also involves disputed question of facts.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is however at liberty to take alternative recourse on the present issue as provided under law, if so advised.