Pratima Banik vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

[1] Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 to 9.

[2] The petitioner being a service provider was engaged by the Global Education Net [GNET in short] which used to run the management of Tripura Medical College & Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania. Against the services so provided, the petitioner raised the bill for payment in accordance with the contract but suddenly the GNET had left the management without paying the outstanding bills and the management was initially taken over by the respondents No.1 and 2 and thereafter, they had transferred the management to the Society, the respondent No.3, which presently runs the said medical college. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to get a sum of Rs.25,27,213.50 from the said medical college for providing services viz. cleaning and sweeping by engaging a huge number of persons. Since 2007, the petitioner on several times approached the management including the respondents No.1 and 2 but nothing positive has yielded. The bills remained outstanding so long. Hence, she had approached this court for directing the respondents to make payment of the said outstanding bills.

[3] Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents No.1 and 2 took over the management and by such taking over, the liability as left by the previous management has to be deemed to have been taken over inasmuch as all the assets of the said medical college have been taken over by the State. Mr. Deb, learned counsel referring to a letter dated 06.09.2010 written by the petitioner to the respondent No.3 has advanced the claim for the said amount. Thereafter, through one lawyer, the petitioner raised her demand by way of the demand notice dated 23.04.2011, but as stated nothing positive has happened. However, in the meanwhile, at the instance of the respondents No.1 & 2, one report titled as 'the report on determination of Assets and Liabilities of Tripura Medical College & Dr. BRAM Teaching hospital' has been prepared, apparently for purpose of discharging the pending liabilities. In Annexure-2 to that report, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No.58 showing that her accounts has been confirmed for an outstanding amount of Rs.25,27,213.50. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has further submitted that in view of that, this case being similarly circumstanced that of a case which has been decided by this court by the judgment and order dated 26.07.2011 in W.P.(C) No.347 of 2011 [Smt. Sima Chowdhury vs. the State of Tripura and another], Annexure-P/11 to the writ petition, a similar order may be passed by this court. In that case this court observed as under:

"13. In view of this, this Court is of the opinion that the Government of Tripura in the Health and Family Welfare Department are obligated to come forward to resolve the impasse for saving the likes of the petitioner from unjust enrichment. They cannot wish away the liability of paying the creditors when they have taken over the management of the said hospital.

In view of this, the writ petition stands disposed of with the directions:

The respondents No.1 and 2 shall jointly find ways and means to pay the outstanding/the balance to the petitioner as the accounts so placed by the petitioner has been confirmed by the previous management, Global Education Net and also by the committee constituted for purpose of determining the assets and liabilities of the said hospital within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

The respondents are given liberty to enter into a suitable agreement as regards the mode of payment, if necessary by stretching the period of payment with the petitioner. For that purpose it is expected that the petitioner shall extend all sorts of cooperation to the respondents.

It is to be noted that the said directions have been made by this Court on consideration that the assets created in the PPP venture are under use and control of the respondent No.2 at the instance of the respondent No.1."

[4] Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 has submitted that no recorded obligation is found for taking over the management of the said medical college and as such, except by implication the respondents No.1 & 2 do not have any obligation in payment of the outstanding for the service as claimed to have provided to the establishment. That apart, in Para-22 of the reply filed by the respondents No.1 & 2, it has been observed as under:

"The said case is still pending before the Arbitrator. Until and unless the findings/judgment of the Sole Arbitrator is received none of the claim of the petitioner as well as other claimant cases be settled."

It is admitted position that this arbitration reference had been made over a dispute in a particular case and the petitioner is concerned in the said dispute. But from this averment, it is clear that the respondents No.1 & 2 have verified the claim and they perhaps have intended to imply that on the result of the arbitration proceeding they may come to a state when the impasse may be realistically withheld. However, the petitioner is not ready to accept such proposition.

[5] Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 to 9 has submitted that Annexure-D to the writ petition [the report] cannot be wholly relied inasmuch as in the said report it has been observed as reproduced below, that might dent the credibility of the said report.

"iv. As regards remaining 94 creditors against whom Rs.1009,67,286 was shown as payable to them confirmation of accounts from the creditors was obtained by GENET & furnished to audit. In course of verification of transactions, audit asked for supporting bills & payment vouchers. A large numbers of bills and vouchers, as indicated in annexure-'D' for which requisition was placed by audit, could not be produced. As a result, credits as well as payments shown as transactions in the accounts of individual creditors leading to closing balance shown against them could not be verified in audit. In view of obscurity & lack of transparency in accounts in respect of these creditors, audit is unable to firm up its views regarding correctness of closing balance shown against the creditors and hence could not determine the liability in respect these 94 creditors."

[6] On the keen examination of the said report [Annexure-D], it has surfaced that that the column for confirmation of accounts, receipts/not receipt against the petitioner's claim has been shown as 'yes'. It shall invariably mean that the account has been confirmed. Be that as it may Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has raised that if the petitioner can support her claim by filing the original vouchers or the receipted vouchers, Tripura Medical College & Dr. BRAM Teaching hospital is ready to re-examine the matter and settle up her claim.

[7] Having regard to the said statement, this court would direct the petitioner to submit/refurnish the original receipted challan to the Chief Executive Officer, Tripura Medical College & Dr. BRAM Teaching hospital within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date when she would receive the certified copy of this order on obtaining an acknowledgment of receipt from the said Executive Officer. On receipt of those challans, within a period of 3(three) months therefrom, the respondent No.3 through the respondent No.9 shall settle the claim and make the payment within another 3(three) months thereafter, if the petitioner is entitled to get such payment as a whole or otherwise.

With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 to 9.