AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Mukherjee, J.
1) The writ petitioners allege that the writ petitioner no.1 is a registered S.S.I. Unit and is enlisted to Eastern Coalfields Limited (in short ‘ECL’)
for doing repair works of the vehicles of different collieries at Kunustoria Area, Kajora Area, Bankola Area and Kenda Area of the said Eastern
Coalfields Limited the respondent no. 1 . It is also the further case of the writ petitioners that by several note-sheets issued from time to time by the
Eastern Coalfields Limited, the writ petitioner no. 1 carried out repairs to the vehicles of several collieries under Eastern Coalfields Limited.
2) The writ petitioners show that the Eastern Coalfields Limited (Belbaid Colliery, Kunustoria Area) by a memo dated 11th /15th September, 2003 â€
after scrutinizing the documents â€" had approved an amount of Rs. 82,353/- to be paid to the writ petitioner no. 1. It is an internal document and
appears at page 51 of the writ petition. By another internal memo dated 25th September, 2003, the agent of the Parasea Group of Mines informed the
Area Finance Manager, Kunustoria Area, that payment of Rs. 82,353/- could not be made to the petitioner no.1 in the financial year 2001 although the
said amount had already been approved by the concerned agent but due to paucity of fund and thereafter as the budget was being controlled and
operated by the area office, the proposal could not be cleared.
3) The writ petitioners say that despite such admission, the admitted amount of Rs. 82,353/- remained unpaid. In such a situation the writ petitioners
approached this Court by filing a previous writ petition, being W.P. 19447 (W) of 2004, which was disposed of by an order dated 5th January, 2007,
directing the competent authorities of Eastern Coalfields Limited to consider and dispose of the representations made by the writ petitioners within six
weeks from the date of communication of the said order.
4) Upon perusal of the order dated 5th January, 2007, it appears that this Court while passing the same took into account the acknowledgement of the
writ petitioners’ entitlement of Rs. 82,353/- by the respondents. However, on the sole issue that it was not possible for this Court to adjudicate the
quantum payable to the writ petitioners, this Court directed the competent authorities of ECL to consider the representations made by the writ
petitioners claiming such sum of Rs. 82,353/-.
5) Pursuant to the said order dated 5th January, 2007, the Chief General Manager, Kunustoria Area, passed an order on June 4, 2007, after hearing
the parties.
6) The said order dated June 4, 2007, is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition wherein the writ petitioners have not only asked for
setting aside the said order but also have asked for payment of the said sum of Rs. 82,353/- with interest at the rate of 18%.
7) The advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that photocopies of all the documents in the possession of the writ petitioners were
submitted before the Chief General Manager, Kunustoria Area, but the said Manager in his order dated June 4, 2007 did not consider the same in true
spirit or the meaning and purport thereof and have rejected the claim of the writ petitioner no. 1 on untenable grounds. According to the writ
petitioners, the said officer ought to have passed the order releasing the said sum of Rs. 82,353/-after considering the documents submitted. The order
dated June 4, 2007, according to the writ petitioners, suffer from palpable infirmity and is requited to be set aside. The advocate for the writ petitioners
has cited three judgments in support of his client’s case that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
can direct payment of the admitted sum, which are as follows: -
1) AIR 1983 SC 848 (paragraphs 8 and 9),
2) (1998) 8 SCC 1 (paragraphs 14,15 and 20) and
3) (2016) 8 SCC 446.
8) Relying upon the judgment reported in AIR 1983 SC 848, the advocate for the petitioners submit that upon receipt of written instruction from ECL
through the note-sheets, the writ petitioners repaired the vehicles sent to workshop and have thereby altered their position. After executing the works,
the petitioners have not received their charges despite there being acknowledgement of the entitlement of writ petitioner no. 1 to receive sum of Rs.
82,353/- from the side of ECL. He submits that the fetters of promissory estoppel cannot be applied to the case of the writ petitioners as sought to be
urged by the respondents. By citing the judgment reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, the writ petitioners contend that the entitlement to get Rs. 82,353/- is
admitted and is covered under the words “for any other purposeâ€. The respondents having approved the petitioners’ entitlement of Rs.
82,353/- can be directed by issuance of prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to make such payment of the said sum. By
relying upon the judgment reported in (2016) 8 SCC 446, it is contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that the Court has the authority to invoke its
writ jurisdiction in a contractual matters.
9) The advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the said sum of Rs. 82,353/- cannot be said to be an
admitted amount as the documents relied upon by the writ petitioners do not suggest of any admission by the Eastern Coalfields Limited. He then
submits that even if there is an admission, such admission has taken place beyond three years period from the date on which the writ petitioners
became entitled to receive the payment, that is, between1999-2000. According to the respondents, the writ petitioners became entitled to payment
immediately upon submission of the bills and three years period therefrom had elapsed. Prior to issuance of the two letters relied upon by the
petitioners, the entire claim, therefore, is time barred and no relief can be granted to the writ petitioners by directing payment of such time barred dues.
According to the respondents assuming without admitting the purported admission the dates thereof signifies that same is after expiry of three years
period, that is to say, in respect of time barred claim and as such the claim does not revive in the year 2003 with the so-called admission. The writ
Court does not have the jurisdiction to direct payment of money as the same can be done only by a competent Civil Court in a civil suit by passing a
money decree. In the instant case, the petitioners are required to prove their claim by laying evidence and only thereafter if the petitioners are able to
prove their claim, ECL can be directed to make payment.
10) The advocate for the respondents further contends that in a writ jurisdiction, the Court is not empowered to grant mandatory relief, which, in
effect, is a money decree. The writ petitioners, if at all, were aggrieved by the non-payment of any bill ought to have filed a civil suit to recover such
money claim. He further submits that the Chief General Manager, Kunustoria Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited â€" after giving a hearing to the writ
petitioners and upon considering all documents submitted by the writ petitioners â€" had passed a reasoned order and as such, the order dated June 4,
2007, should not be interfered with and the writ petition should be dismissed. He relies upon a judgment reported in AIR 2011 Calcutta 56 to impress
upon the fact that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction should not interfere with the order
of the authority unless the decision rendered by the concerned authority palpably wrong or is arbitrary or perverse or smacks of malafide motive.
11) Considering the materials on record as also the submissions of the respective parties and the judgments cited at the Bar, I find that the order dated
June 4, 2007, passed by the Chief General Manager, Kunustoria Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited, to be arbitrary, perverse and smells of mala fide
motive for the following reasons:-
i) On perusal of the order dated June 4, 2007, it is explicit that the said authority proceeded primarily on two grounds â€" (i) there is no valid contract
between the parties as the writ petitioners have failed to produce any work order. The said authority while coming to such conclusion clearly ignored
the note-sheets, the photocopies whereof have been admittedly submitted to the said authority. The note-sheets clearly indicate in unambiguous terms
by providing vehicle number, the departmental estimate of cost for such repair with a request to the writ petitioner no. 1 to carry out emergency
repairs is a writ order. The writ petitioners have accepted such proposal by taking up such repair work and as such, a valid contract either expressly
or on implied terms came into existence between the parties with the offer and acceptence and the two memo respectively dated 11th/15th
September, 2003 and 25th September, 2003 further goes on to show that the writ petitioners have carried out at least some work for which Rs. 82,
353/- was approved by the concerned colliery. The Chief General Manager, Kunustoria Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited, erred in law as well as on
facts while passing the order dated June 4, 2007, whereby he held that there was no valid contract between the parties. The Chief General Manager
has also given no finding to the effect that the note-sheets have not been issued by any competent officer of Eastern Coalfields Limited or that the
same are procured ones. In absence of such finding, the genuineness of the note-sheets cannot also be doubted in view of the provisions of Evidence
Act, 1872.
ii) On the issue that the petitioners claim is barred by limitation-The Chief General Manager, Kunustoria Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited, in his
order dated June 4, 2007, has held that the claim of the writ petitioners is barred by limitation, since it was a claim arising in the years 1999-2000 and
2000-2001. While doing so, he ignored the two memos dated 11th /15th September, 2003 and 25th September, 2003 respectively. It is clear from the
memo dated 11th /15th September, 2003 that prior to the said date a sum of Rs. 82,353/- was admitted to be an amount payable to the writ petitioners.
From the memo dated 25th September, 2003, it also appears that the said sum of Rs. 82,353/- could not be paid as sufficient fund was not available
with Kunustoria Group of Mines at the relevant time, and from the beginning of the financial year 2001 budget was being controlled and operated at
the area office and therefore, the proposal could not be cleared. The said authority has not discussed anything about the two letters in his order of
admission relied upon by the writ petitioners in the said two letters.
The concerned authority has also not held that the said two memo are non-existence or issued by officers without any authority. On the contrary, it
appears that the said two memo have been written in reply to departmental queries from other wings of Eastern Coalfields Limited. The concerned
authority in his order has also not provided with any reason as to why these memo would not extend the period of limitation beyond three years or to
the extent that admission had been made after expiry of three years from the date when the claim of the writ petitioners arises. In absence of such
finding, it cannot be held that the claim of the writ petitioners is time barred claim and cannot be raised. It is also observed that the main thrust of the
respondents is that the claim of the writ petitioners is barred by limitation. The writ petitioners in view of the two memo dated 11th /15th September,
2003 and 25th September, 2003 respectively may have been advised to invoke the writ jurisdiction when ordinarily a civil suit lies. The respondents are
public sector enterprise and its officers. After finding that the writ petitioners have spent a long time litigating in a writ jurisdiction now tries to harp
upon the limitation point to avoid the writ petitioners’ claim, if any, knowing fully well that if relegated to civil suit after lapse so many years, the
writ petitioners may not be able to establish their claim due to dearth of evidence and witness which may have been lost during passage of time. It
clearly smacks of malafide motive on the part of the respondents.
In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the order dated June 4, 2007 passed by the Chief General Manager, Kunustoria Area
of Eastern Coalfields Limited, is unsustainable and is set aside. The competent authority of the respondent no. 1, now authorized to deal with the claim
of the writ petitioners, is directed to consider the matter afresh by affording the writ petitioners a due and proper hearing without being influenced by
finding in the order dated June 4, 2007. He should specifically address the point of limitation after considering the relevant dates and documents. He
should also address on the view of payment if interest since the writ petitioner no. 1 claims to be an SSI, if he finds that the writ petitioner No. 1 is
entitled to the said sum of Rs. 82,353/- as also the period for which and the rate at which interest is payable.
The entire exercise of disposing of the writ petitioners’ claim be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of this
order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Arindam Mukherjee J.)
Later
After pronouncing the judgment and order, prayer for stay made on behalf of the respondents is considered and refused.