Abdul Rassak vs Neyyattinkara Municipality Municipal Office

Alexander Thomas, J.—The petitioner claims to be the manager of a firm, which is engaged in the supply of electrical goods to various municipalities and other local authorities. Pursuant to a purchase order issued on 5.2.2008 by the 1st respondent-Neyyattinkara Municipality, the petitioner supplied various electrical goods to the said respondent-Municipality, who received the goods and acknowledged the same, it is averred. The petitioner had prepared different invoices with respect to the goods supplied as per invoice dated 12.2.2008 for Rs. 4,85,407.36, invoice dated 12.3.2008 for Rs. 2,77,385.63 and invoice dated 24.3.2008 for Rs. 1,30,200/-. Certain part payments were made by the 1st respondent and there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,92,992.99 and in spite of various requests made by the petitioner, the respondent-Municipality has not paid and cleared off such outstanding amounts, it is averred. The petitioner has sent several reminders including those as in Ext. P1. It is in the conspectus these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

"A) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents to make payment of Rs. 1,92,992.99 to the petitioner since this is the amount remaining unpaid to the petitioner for which the goods have already been supplied and the same used by the respondents.

B) Grant such other reliefs which are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

The respondent-Municipality has filed a counter affidavit dated 31.8.2011. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Municipality had invited tenders for buying spare parts of street lights, after allocating Rs. 7 lakhs under the People''s Planning Programme, for the year 2007-2008 and tender was confirmed in the name of the petitioner as he was the lowest bidder. When the supply order was given, there occurred an increase of Rs. 1,44,721/- in the original amount allocated and that the Municipality had informed the petitioner to take back the goods supplied in excess of Rs. 1,44,721.49 in the year 2008 itself as per Ext. R1(a) letter dated 2.7.2008. It is further stated that the total amount sanctioned by the Municipal Council was only Rs. 7 lakhs, whereas the petitioner firm had supplied electrical goods worth Rs. 8,44,542.98 and therefore, the outstanding amount is only Rs. 1,44,721.49 as stated above and not Rs. 1,92,992.99 as alleged in the Writ Petition. It is further stated that the Municipality by a mistake had stated in the reply letter dated 21.2.2011 issued in response to the lawyer''s notice sent by the petitioner that steps will be taken by the Municipality to pay the amount as soon as administrative sanction is accorded by the Municipal Council, etc.

The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, wherein it is stated that when the respondents approached by issuing by Ext. R1 (a) letter 2.7.2008, the petitioner had stated that he was ready to take back the goods immediately on receipt of Ext. R1(a) letter. But the response given to the petitioner by the respondent-Municipality was that the electrical goods supplied by the petitioner were already utilized by the Municipality and, therefore, the payment for the entire goods supplied by the petitioner would be made. The petitioner also relies on Ext. P2 letter dated 21.2.2011 issued by the respondent-Municipality (produced in the reply affidavit), wherein it is stated that the administrative sanction obtained for the transaction in question was only for Rs. 7 lakhs for the year 2007-2008 and that the purchase order of the goods supplied by the petitioner involved payment of an excess amount of Rs. 1,44,721/- and that for sanction of the excess amount of Rs. 1,44,721/-, steps for getting such approval has already been in motion and that immediately on getting the approval from the respondent-Municipal Council, steps would be taken to pay the said amount to the petitioner, etc.

Heard Sri. Sadchith. P. Kurup, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Neyyattinkara Municipality.

It is evident form Ext. R1(a) dated 2.7.2008 that the transaction had exceeded the sanctioned limit granted by the respondent-Municipal Council and that the respondent-Municipality had requested the petitioner by Ext. R1(a) dated 2.7.2008 to take back the goods corresponding to the excess value of Rs. 1,44,721/-. But the petitioner specifically pointed out that in response to Ext. R1(a) dated 2.7.2008, he was prepared to take back the excess goods, but the respondent-Municipality had informed the petitioner that the goods were already utilized by the respondent-Municipality.

Though the respondent-Municipality has raised a contention in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that the facts stated in Ext. P2 dated 21.2.2011 was mistake, this Court is not prepared to countenance such an argument. In Ext. P2 dated 21.2.2011, it is clearly and cogently stated by the respondent-Municipal Council that the sanctioned amount involved for the transaction in question for the year 2007-2008 was only Rs. 7 lakhs and that the amount covered by the purchase order in question had exceeded by a value of Rs. 1,44,721/- compared to the administrative sanctioned amount of Rs. 7 lakhs. But it is further clearly stated in Ext. P2 that the respondent-Municipality would take steps to get sanction for the said excess amount and that steps would be taken to pay the amount to the petitioner immediately after getting such sanction. Therefore, the averments in Ext. P2 is to be seen in the light of the averment of the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the reply affidavit that he was prepared to take back the goods covered by the excess amount consequent to receipt of Ext. R1(a) dated 2.7.2008, but that the respondent-Municipality had informed the petitioner that the goods were already utilized. This version of the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the reply affidavit is fully probabilised by the statements made by the respondent-Municipal Council in Ext. P2 letter dated 21.2.2011 issued by the respondent-Municipality. Therefore, fairness and reasonableness expected from a statutory local body of self Government like the respondent-Municipality demand that they should act fairly and reasonably in all such commercial transactions. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent-Municipal Council shall complete the necessary action for taking a decision on the issue of approval of the excess expended amount of Rs. 1,44,721/- and thereafter consider the issue of payment of the outstanding amounts due to the petitioner. Steps in this regard shall be completed by the respondent-Municipal Council. Sri. Sadchith. P. Kurup, learned counsel for the writ petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner would limit his claim only to the amount of Rs. 1,44,721/- acknowledged by the Municipality themselves in their counter affidavit as well as in Ext. P2 letter dated 21.2.2011 and that he would not claim for the full outstanding balance amount of Rs. 1,92,992.99 as averred in the Writ Petition. This submission of the writ petitioner is recorded.

The respondent-Municipality shall complete all necessary steps as directed above within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition (Civil) stands disposed of with the above directions and observations.