Rungta Irrigation Limited vs The State of Bihar and Others

This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the order of 30 October, 2002 on C.W.J.C. No. 11990 of 200: M/s Rungta Irrigation Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Apparently a writ petition had been filed seeking a direction that the Respondents pay the admitted dues to the Petitioner. These admitted dues are explained to the Court as subsidy/incentive for supply of sprinkling irrigation system to the agriculturists. The subsidy referred to is amounting to Rs. 83,34,863/-. Payment is sought of this amount with interest from the date of supply till the date of payment.

The learned Judge declined to grant a relief on the petition A submission on behalf of the Petitioner was also noticed to the effect that "the writ petition is not for enforcement of contractual obligations, but is for due implementation of the policy decision of the Government". Submission apart, the Petitioner is clearly seeking a direction by a mandamus that the State Respondents give the balance amount due to the Petitioner whatever it might be with interest from the date of supply till the date of payment. Clearly, the argument before the learned Judge was in contradiction. The period of transaction appeared to be between 1996-97 and 1997-98.

The learned Judge records that the Petitioner has not been able to produce any evidence of a contract between the parties. The learned Judge also records in the matter relating to any transaction which may have taken place between the State Respondents and the Petitioner "the conspiracy at the local level between the District Agricultural Officer and the Petitioner and similar suppliers is under investigation. The Petitioner has not placed on record any document at all other than those issued under the signature of the District Agricultural Officers to support the claim that the orders had been issued by the State Government."

The Court has also examined the record of the writ petition. The pleadings of the Respondents show that these matters have been referred to the Criminal Investigation Department against the distribution of subsidy and the sprinkling irrigation system in the matter of the scheme referred to (paragraph 4).

The counter affidavit also mentions that this is not a matter for wrongful withdrawal of amount but there have been irregularities in the matter relating to the grant of subsidy at the District level. The counter affidavit also mentions "as the reasons mentioned in paragraph 5A the withdrawal of amount cannot be done since the Accountant General could not issue the withdrawal authority for that financial year 1997-98" (Paragraph 8).

The Petitioner Appellant could not show with confidence from the record that there was any assignment of contract, a public contract and that he was the person who was rightly elected for the contract. The matter is in any case, under investigation of the C.I.D.

The Court cannot certify that the learned Judge has committed any error in dismissing the writ petition.

Dismissed.