Boulevard Enterprises vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Election Officer, East Singhbhum-

respondent no.2 to pay the admitted due amount of bill to the petitioner firm with suitable interest for supply of stationery/printing materials during

Jharkhand State Assembly Elections, 2019 as the petitioner has been made only part payment towards the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of a “very short tender notice†as contained in memo no.1998/Jamshedpur dated 30th

September, 2019 (Annexure-1 to the present writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent no.2, the petitioner participated in the same

and having declared successful in the said tender, was awarded the work for supply of stationery/printing materials in East Singhbhum district. The

petitioner has contended in the writ petition that after making supply of the said materials as per the requirement of the tender notice, it raised a bill of

Rs.1,42,39,401/- out of which the respondents admitted the payment to the extent of Rs.1,30,56,260/-. However out of the said amount, 40% of the

same i.e., Rs. 52,22,504/- has been illegally deducted as per the order of the respondent no.2, as would be evident from the extract of bill signed by the

Deputy Election Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on 29th February, 2020 (a copy of which was furnished to the petitioner on its application filed

under the Right to Information Act, 2005) and the final payable amount came to Rs.75,23,538/-. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the

petitioner preferred several representations before the respondent no.2 (copies of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 series to the present writ

petition). However according to the petitioner, the respondent no.2 has not taken any decision on the petitioner’s claim for release of the 40%

deducted bill amount.

Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, A.C. to A.A.G. II appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that since the present matter is required to be factually

verified, if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation before the respondent no.2, an appropriate informed decision will be taken by the said

respondent.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, without

entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation before the respondent no.2 on the present issue. On

receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.2 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s representative, shall take

appropriate informed decision within a period of three months from the date of filing of the said representation.

The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.