AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. M. Devananda Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners as well as Mr.S. Suresh, learned Jr.G.A. to the learned Advocate General, Manipur appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.
The brief fact of the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the Registered Contractors of the Govt. of Manipur. The Public Works Department(PWD), Govt. of Manipur issued different work orders in favour of the petitioners for executing different contract works and the particulars of the contracts works are mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition. Para3 of the writ petition reads as follows:
�3. That the petitioners executed certain works,
a. for A.L. Fareng:
(i) Phungyar to Ngaprum (SH: E/W in formation cutting 025 km. Viapathung Nongman.
(ii) Phungyar to Ngaprum (SH: E/W in formation cutting 025 Km. via patbung Nangman.
b. For S.K. Redeem Kharay
(i) Impt. Of Kharasom lago & Tusem 044 Km.(SH:Removal of land slips portion from 1231 Km)
(ii) Jessami Saraphung to Wahong 035 Km.(S/H:E/W in 30 35 Km) and works.
c. For H. Ashang
i) Constn. Of Itham Moirangpurel T/Hundung rd. (SH: Trace path cutting to 11.43 Km and 11.08 30 Km).
d. For S.R. Simray
(i) Renovation of AE Offices at Shangshak.
(ii) Rehabilitation of Bridges under Ukhrul Divn.(SH: Replacement of W/Seeking over maklang river between Kuki Kamtong to Khanglo).
e. For V.S. Vareiyo
i. Jessami Saraphung to Wahong 035 Km.(SH: Widening from 11.950 Km and formation cutting 20.08 35 Km).
ii. Constn. Of bridge at Challon river at Tuson (SH: Constn. Of Alutments)
iii. Tolloi Junction to Ngaimu 08 (SH: Shingling 0 to 8 Km.(05.60 Km). iv. Impt. Of rd. between chaohong and Maku junction (SH: E/W in F/C 10.01 11.6 Km).
f. M. Angai
(i) Constn. Of Itham Moirangpurel T/Hundung rd. (SH: Impt of grade for the portion 6 11 Km. 9.705 11 Km).
(ii) Tolloi Junctionn to Ngaingu E/W and C/D work in formation 08 Km. (SH: Clearance of land ship 2 to 3 Km.)
(iii) Tolloi junction to Ngaingu E/W and C/D work 0 8 Km.(SH: Clearance of land slip 34 km).
(iv) Kamjong to Phungyar rd.0.34 km.(SH: E/W in F/C 034 km.(SH: Surface dressing 2534 Km). v. Road from Maku junction to cholong via Langli (SH: Trace path cutting 06 km. and formation cutting 033 km.(SH: Surface dressing 06 km.)
(vi) Kamjong to Phungyar rd.(SH E/W in F/C 034 km. slip Clearnace 2324 Km.)
(vii) Kamjong to Phungyar rd.(SH: E/W in F/C 034 km.(SH: Surface dressing 39 to 10 km.)
g. For A.S. Kathing
(i) Constn. Of residential Qtrs. For District administration under 7th F/commission phaseI at East District Ukhrul (SH: Costn. Of Type III/No.TyII4 nos and Ty.I 6 nos. at Jessami.
h. For M. Chaoba Singh
(i) Impt. Of Itham Moirangpurel T/Hundung rd. i/c CD works (SH: E/W in F/C R.C.C. ring culterts and Shingling).
i. For A.S. Ashing
(i) Impt. Of rd. from Maku junction to chahong constn. Of cultverts 900mm dia 11 nos.�
Rule 273 of the General Financial Rules(GFR) speaks about the requirements of security deposit and it says that subject to any general or special instructions prescribed by the Govt.in this behalf, a private person or a firm, contracting with Govt. to supply stores or to execute a work, shall, unless exempted by orders issued with the prior consent of the Finance Department, be required to furnish security for the due fulfillment of the contract. A suitable provision regarding the security shall be incorporated in the agreement. In fulfillment of the requirement of the Rule 273 of the GFR, there is a clause in the agreements of the contract between the present writ petitioners and the respondents in respect of the contract works mentioned above. The further case of the petitioners is that the contract works mentioned above had already been executed by the contractors and also the Engineer incharge/concerned Engineer had already issued the certificate for the completion of the contract works. The respondents also had already paid the final bill for the contract works mentioned above to the present writ petitioners.
By this writ petition, the petitioners are praying for a direction to the respondents to refund the security deposits for the contract works mentioned above for which the Government had already paid the final bill. The total amount of the security deposits for the writ petitioners which are to be refunded by the respondents is Rs. 8,02,122/(Rupees eight lakhs two thousand one hundred and twenty two)only. The respondents also filed their affidavitinopposition. In para3 of their affidavitinopposition, the respondents clearly state that as per the record submitted by the concerned Division, Executive Engineer, Ukhrul Division, P.W.D., Manipur, i.e. the respondent no.4 herein, a sum of Rs. 6,22,280/(Rupees six lakhs twenty two thousand two hundred and eighty)only is refundable to the petitioners being the security depositsII and V and the amount claimed by the petitioners of Rs. 8,02,122/(Rupees eight lakhs two thousand one hundred and twentytwo)only is not correct amount and as such there is a difference of Rs. 1,79,842/ (Rupees one lakh seventynine thousand eight hundred and fortytwo)only. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners will have no objection in refunding the said undisputed amount of security deposits, i.e. Rs. 6,22,280/(Rupees six lakhs twenty two thousand two hundred and eighty)only to the petitioners. Such being the situation, the undisputed amount of security deposits i.e, Rs. 6,22,280/(Rupees six lakhs twentytwo thousand two hundred and eighty)only be refunded to the writ petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners, further, submitted that this case is squarely covered (1) by the decision of this court dated 10.3.2005 passed in W.P.(C ) No. 437 of 2004 and batch and (2) by the decisions of this court in a plethora of cases viz. 1. Angpu Khaling Vs State of Manipur & Ors 1992 (2) GLT 419 wherein this court held that writ petitions for a direction to pay undisputed bills is maintainable even if there is an alternative remedy. 2. Green Valley Industry Vrs State of Assam & Ors reported in 1999 (1) GLT 604 wherein DB of this court held that writ petitions for a direction to pay undisputed amount of bill is maintainable 3. Swadesh Lal Roy Vs State of Assam & Ors reported in 2001 (1) GLT 332 wherein this court held that writ petitions for a direction to pay undisputed outstanding bills is maintainable and 4. Tayum Yalli & Ors Vrs Union of India and Ors reported in 2002 (3) GLT 416 wherein this court held that writ petitions for a direction to pay undisputed bill on completion of contract works is maintainable.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this writ petition is covered by the decision of this court mentioned above. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to refund the undisputed security deposit, i.e. Rs. 6,22,280/(Rupees six lakhs twenty thousand two hundred and eighty)only to the writ petitioners within a period of 5(five) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and order.
It is made clear that as the letter dated 30.11.2002 of the Under Secretary(Finance), Govt. of Manipur(AnnexureX/1 to the affidavit in opposition) had already been quashed by this court in the earlier writ petition, the respondent are not required to give effect to the said letter dated 30.11.2002.