Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 15, Cited by 1]

Allahabad High Court

Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt.Ltd.Thoru Its ... vs State Of ... on 14 February, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 256

Bench: Anil Kumar, Saurabh Lavania





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Reserved
 

 

 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 8117 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt.Ltd.Thoru Its M.D.And Anr.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Agriculture Deptt.Lko.& Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.M.Tripathi,Ankit Singh,Ayush Chaudhary,Gaurav Mehrotra,Utsav Misra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,V.P.Nag,Vijyant Nigam
 

 
Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Utsav Misra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned State Counsel, Sri V.P. Nag, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 as well as Sri Vijyant Nigam, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 5.

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for the following main reliefs:-

"(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding/directing the opposite parties to release the outstanding amount of the petitioner Rs. 3,83,44,140/- along with admissible interest to the petitioner forthwith.
(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding/directing the opposite parties particularly the opposite party no.2&3 i.e. the NAFED and U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam, Lucknow to take appropriate step with regard to payment of petitioners due amount for releasing the same as expeditiously as possible by complying the direction issued by the State Government for the said purposes."

It is stated that an agreement for purchase of seeds dated 27.10.2008 was entered into between opposite party No. 2/National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd., NAFED House, Ashram Chowk, New Delhi (in short "NAFED") and the petitioners/Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. (in short "Supplier"). The opposite party No. 2 is a national level society registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 having its registered Office at New Delhi.

As per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 27.10.2008 particularly Clauses 2 and 3 thereof, Supplier was under obligation to take all necessary steps to receive payment in favour of NAFED from the Institutions to whom the supply was made and after receiving the payment from the Institutions, NAFED was under obligation to release 90% amount/make payment to the Supplier after necessary deduction.

It is further stated that in terms of the agreement dated 27.10.2008, Supplier (petitioners) supplied 2144.50 quintals of seeds after execution of the agreement aforesaid.

It is also stated that the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4/U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam (in short "Nigam") issued the order dated 29.05.2009 for supply/purchase of paddy seed. The Addressee of the order dated 29.05.2009 is NAFED. The order dated 29.05.2009 contains two conditions and according to the said conditions, the required payment i.e. 90% of the amount against supply made to the opposite party No. 3 would be paid within 30 days and the remaining 10% would be paid in the next three months. The order dated 29.05.2009 reads as under:-

"egksn;] d`i;k vki vius QSDl i= ASC/DL/UP SEED/09-10/178 fnukad 27-05-2009] dk lUnHkZ ysus dk d"V djsa] ftlds ek/;e ls vkius fry izekf.kr cht] rFkk lR;kfir ladj cktjk] ladj /kku ,oa ladj eDdk chtksa dh iztkfrokj miyC/krk bafxr djrs gq, ,Q-vks-vkj- iznk; njksa ls voxr djk;k x;k gSA miZ;qDRk ds dze esa fuxe }kjk fuEufyf[kr Qly chtksa ds dz;kns'k fuEukfooj.kkuqlkj fuxZr fd;s tk jgs gSA dz-la0 Qly iztkfr ek=k ¼dq0 esa½ ,Q-vks-vkj- dz; nj
1. fry izek- cht th-&1] th&2 350 155@&izfr fd-xzk- 
 2-  ladj /kku     ljnkj&2144     1200      180@& izfr fd-xzk-
 
		    ljnkj&2171    1268      180@& izfr fd-xzk-
 
		    ljnkj&2155    & & &    180@& izfr fd-xzk-
 
3- ladj cktjk      lezkV&131        665      80@& izfr fd-xzk-
 
4- ladj eDdk      ljnkj&9999       384     45@& izfr fd-xzk-
1- mijksDr Qly iztkfr;ksa ds chtksa dh xq.koRrk dh iwjh ftEEksnkjh usQsM dh gksxh rFkk vkiwfrZ fd;s tkus okyk cht] cht vf/kfu;e&1966 ds ekudksa ds vuq#i gksuk pkfg, rFkk fdlh Hkh Lrj ls f'kdk;r izkIr gksus ij {kfriwfrZ gsrq usQsM iw.kZ #i ls mRrjnk;h gksxkA 2- vkiwfrZr chtksa dk 90 izfr'kr Hkqxrku fuxe d`f"k foHkkx }kjk fuxZr foHkkxh; Hk.Mkj jlhn lfgr chtdksa ds izkIr gksus ds 30 fnu ds vUnj rFkk 'ks"k 10 izfr'kr dk Hkqxrku rhu eghus ds vUnj vFkok Qly ds ijQkWjesUl ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;sxkA 3- d`f"k foHkkx ds tuinh; xksnkeksa ij ftyk d`f"k vf/kdkfj;ksa ds Lrj ls uewuk vkgfjr dj ijh{k.k djk;k tk;sxk rFkk ;fn ;g cht vekud gksrk gS] rks bldh ftEesnkjh usQsM dh gksxhA 4- vkiwfrZ fd;s tkus okys mijksDr chtksa dh teko ijh{k.k vk[;k Hkqxrku ds iwoZ miyC/k djkuk gksxkA lapyu dk;Zdze bl i= ds lkFk layXu fd;k tk jgk gSA d`i;k lEcfU/kr ftyk d`f"k vf/kdkfj;ksa dks vkoaVukuqlkj mijksDr Qly iztkfr;ksa dk cht Vªdksa }kjk miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsaa] rFkk vkiwfrZr ek=k ds lkis{k foHkkxh; Hk.Mkj jlhn tks lEcfU/kr ftyk d`f"k vf/kdkfj;ksa ds Lrj ls izfrgLrk{kfjr gks izkIr djrs gq, chtd ds lkFk layXu dj Hkqxrku gsrq miyC/k djk;sa l/kU;okn]Þ After the order dated 29.05.2009, the Supplier was given purchase order dated 01.06.2009 by the NAFED for supplying the seed keeping in view the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 27.10.2008.
It is stated in the writ petition that towards supply made by the Supplier, out of total amount of Rs. 4,82,67,000.00, amount of Rs. 66,47,760.00 in the year 2011 and Rs. 32,75,100.00 on 10.07.2014 have been paid and due outstanding amount is Rs. 3,83,44,141.00.
It is also stated that the Supplier with respect of his grievance related to non payment of due amount, represented the Authority concerned and thereafter, the matter was taken up at the level of State Government and after considering the issue involved, the State Government vide order dated 14.09.2012 constituted a three Members Committee to enquire into the matter and submit the report.
The three Members Committee enquired into the matter and submitted report vide letter dated 27.12.2012. Three Members Committee recommended for payment of 2144.50 quintal of paddy seeds. The relevant portion of the enquiry report submitted by the three Members Committee on reproduction reads as under:-
"o"kZ 2009 es usQsM }kjk m0iz0 cht fodkl fuxe dh vkiwfrZr ladj /kku cht ds yfEcr py jgs Hkqxrku dk fuLrkj.k fd, tkus gsrq lfefr dh vk[;k& m0iz0 'kklu d`f"k vuqHkkx&2 ds dk;kZy; Kki la0&37 ch0vkbZ0ih0@12-2-2012 ,l&11@2010 fnukad 14 flrEcj 2012 }kjk lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;kA izcU/k funs'kd cht fodkl fuxe dk;kZy; ls miyC/k djk;s x;s vfHkys[kksa ,oa 'kklu ls izkIr i=koyh la0&,l&11@2010 dk xgurk iwoZd v/;;u fd;k x;kaA mijksDr ds lanHkZ es fnukad 10-10-2012 dks vkgwr cSBd es ppkZ ds nkSjku fuxe ls vk;s Jh eqds'k xkSre] izcU/k funs'kd ,oa Jh ,p0ds0 izlkn vuqHkkxk/;{k foi.ku] }kjk ekSf[kd voxr djk;k] fd vkiwfrZr 2144-50 dq0 ladj /kku cht dh izkfIr jlhnksa ds lkis{k izkIr LVksj jlhns] rFkk 537 dq0 ladj /kku cht dks usQsM }kjk okil mBk ysus ls lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k@lgefr i= dk;kZy; esa miyC/k gS ftls vxyh cSBd esa miyC/k djk fn, tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;kA izcU/k funs'kd ds ekSf[kd vuqjks/k ds n`f"Vxr v/;{k] lfefr us vius i= fnukad 10-10-2012 es okafNr vfHkys[k ds lkFk fn0 17-10-2012 dks mifLFkr gksus gsrq funsZ'k fn,A izcU/k funs'kd }kjk fnukad 17-10-2012 dks nwjHkk"k ij cSBd esa mifLFkr u gksus dh vleFkZrk O;Dr djrs gq, vxyh cSBd 20-10-2012 dks fd, tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;kA fnukad 20-10-2012 dks iqu% nwjHkk"k ij cSBd es lfEefyr u gksus dh vleFkZrk O;DRk djrs gq, fnukad 22-10-2012 dks cSBd vkgwr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;kA vkt fnukad 22-10-2012 dks cSBd lEiUu gqbZA ftlesa ekaxs x;s okafNr vfHkys[k miyC/k u djk ikus dh vleFkZrk O;Dr djrs gq, vkxkeh cSBd fnukad 31-10-2012 esa miyC/k djkus gsrq Jh eqds'k xkSre izcU/k funs'kd }kjk vfUrer vk'oklu fn;k x;k] ijUrq fnukad 31-10-2012 dks cSBd esa u rks Lo;a izcU/k funs'kd }kjk Hkkx fy;k x;k] vkSj u gh okafNr vfHkys[k ds lkFk mudk dksbZ izfrfuf/k mifLFkr gqvkA blls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd cht fodkl fuxe gh mDr izdj.k dks fuLrkfjr djus ds i{k esa ugha gSA lfefr ds v/;{k egksn; us fnukad 13 fnlEcj 2012 dks ,d i= d`f"k mRiknu] vk;qDr egksn; dks fy[kk ,oa ekxZ n'kZu pkgkA ml i= ij d`f"k mRiknu vk;qDr egksn; us Jh eqds'k xkSre] izcU/k funs'kd ds LFkku ij Jh ,0ds0 fo'uksbZ] funs'kd] m0iz0 jkT; cht izek.khdj.k laLFkk dks lfefr dk lnL; ukfer fd;kA cht fodkl fuxe }kjk 2468 dq0 ladj /kku cht dz;kns'k rFkk 3009 dq0 ladj /kku cht ds fuxZr MsfLVus'ku ds vuqikyu es usQsM us d`f"k foHkkx o ;w0ih0,xzks rFkk cht fodkl fuxe ds xksnkeksa ij 2681-50 dq0 cht dh vkiwfrZ dh xbZA usQsM }kjk dqy vkiwfrZr ek=k 2681-50 dq0 ds C;kt lfgr Hkqxrku dh ekax dh tk jgh gSA tcfd 'kklu dh i=koyh ds ifj'khyu ls izrhr gksrk gS fd ;g izdj.k eq[; lfpo Lrj rd x;k Fkk] ftl ij rRdkyhu izeq[k lfpo d`f"k ds vfoZVsª'ku ds vuqjks/k dks vLohdkj djrs gq, LFkkuh; Lrj ij desVh xfBr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k FkkA mDr ds lEcU/k esa esjs le{k fuEufyf[kr vfHkys[kh; lk{; izLrqr fd;s x;s%& 1- cht fodkl fuxe }kjk fuxZr dz;kns'k dh Nk;kizfrA 2- cht fuxe }kjk fn, x, 3009 dq0 MsfLVus'ku dh Nk;kizfrA 3- usQsM }kjk vkiwfrZr 2144-50 dq0 ek=k d`f"k foHkkx ,oa ;w0ih0 ,xzks }kjk nh xbZ izkfIr jlhnksa dh Nk;kizfr ,oa 537 dq0 ek=k cht fodkl fuxe ds xksnke ij fuxe ds i= dh Nk;kizfrA 4- usQsM }kjk ckj&ckj Hkqxrku dh ekax lEca/kh i=ks dh Nk;kizfrA 5- blds vfrfjDRk lfefr dh izR;sd cSBd esa usQsM ds vf/kdkjh mifLFkr jgsA usQsM dk dFku& usQsM dks ladj /kku cht dh vkiwfrZ gsrq cht fodkl fuxe }kjk fnukad 29-5-2009 dks dz;kns'k izkIr gqvk] rFkk 3009 dq0 ds MsfLVus'ku fn;kA mDr ds lkis{k dqy 2681-50 dq0 ladj /kku cht dh vkiwfrZ dh xbZA mDr vkiwfrZr ek=k ds lkis{k usQsM }kjk 2144-50 dq0 dh izkfIr jlhnsa Hkqxrku gsrq fcy ds lkFk cht fodkl fuxe dks miyC/k djk nh xbZA usQsM dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd LVksj jlhns fuxZr djus dh ftEesnkjh lEcfU/kr tuin ds cht izkIrdrkZ izHkkjh@ftyk d`f"k vf/kdkjh dh gksrh gSA lfefr }kjk usQsM ds dFku dh iqf"V& la;qDr d`f"k funs'kd dkuiqj e.My dkuiqj ls dh] ftlds dze esa la;qDRk d`f"k funs'kd dkuiqj }kjk fnukad 12-10-2012 dks miyC/k djk, x, vius i=kad&1138 es mYys[k fd;k gS fd cht fodkl fuxe ds ek/;e ls fdlh QeZ }kjk cht d`f"k foHkkx ds xksnkeksa ij Hkstk tkrk gS] rks mldks QeZ ds pkyku ij izkfIr jlhn nh tkrh gS] LVksj jlhns cht fodkl fuxe dks gh miyC/k djkbZ tkrh gSA Jh ,p0ds0 izlkn] vuqHkkxk/;{k foi.ku cht fodkl fuxe dk dFku& Jh izlkn dk dguk gS fd fuxe dks ftruh cht ek=k dh LVksj jlhns izkIr gksrh gS mrus dk gh Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gSA usQsM }kjk 537 dq0 ladj /kku cht dh vkiwfrZ cht fuxe ds xksnkeksa ij dh xbZ gSA ftls usQsM us dgk Fkk fd okil mBk ysaxsA Jh ,p0ds0 izlkn vuqHkkxk/;{k] foi.ku cht fodkl fuxe ds dFku dh iqf"V& la;qDr d`f"k funs'kd dkuiqj e.My dkuiqj ds i=kad&1138 fnukad 12-10-2012 ,oa i=koyh esa miyC/k rRdkyhu izcU/k funs'kd Jh ,0ds0 fo'uksbZ ds i= fnukad 10-8-2011 ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd cht fodz; ls vo'ks"k ladj /kku chtksa dh okfilh dk dksbZ mYys[k dz;kns'k esa ugh gS vkSj u gh bl izdkj dk dksbZ vuqcU/k ;k cht okfilh dh 'krZ Hkh cht fodkl fuxe ,oa usQsM ds e/; lEikfnr gqbZ FkhA rRdkyhu izcU/k funs'kd] ts0,y0 ljkst] cht fodkl fuxe us vius i= la[;k ;w0ih0lhM@339@05@11@09 fnukad 03-06-2009 ds ek/;e ls d`f"k funs'kd mRrj izns'k dks ;g voxr djk;k fd cht fodkl fuxe }kjk lkekU; izfdz;k dh Hkkafr d`f"k foHkkx o ;w0ih0 ,xzks dh ekax ij ladj /kku cht tuinksa esa miyC/k djk;k tk,xk ftldk forj.k d`f"k foHkkx o ;w0ih0 ,xzks }kjk fd;k tk,xkA lkFk gh ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k x;k] fd fnukad 30-5-2009 dks fuxZr mDr dk;Zo`r ;FkkFkZ ls ijs gS] ftldk fdz;kUo;u lEHko ugh gSA cht fodkl fuxe esa bl dk;Z dks ml le; Jh izlkn gh ns[k jgs Fks] bUgh ds dz;kns'k es gLrk{kj gSA vfHkys[kh; lk{; ls Li"V gksrk gS fd Jh izlkn }kjk lfefr dh cSBd esa fojks/kkHkklh c;ku izLrqr fd;sA lfefr ds v/;{k us orZeku izcU/k funs'kd] Jh eqds'k xkSre] cht fodkl fuxe ,oa Jh ,p0ds0 izlkn ls iwNk fd ;g ,d O;kikfjd ysu&nsu gS] vkSj dz;kns'k esa dgh Hkh ;g mfYyf[kr ugh gS fd vfcfdzr cht vkiwfrZdrkZ }kj okil ys fy;k tk,xkA fnukad 30-5-2009 dh cSBd dk;Zo`r ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ dk;kZy; vkns'k ugha tkjh fd;k x;k vkSj u gh bldh dksbZ lwpuk vkiwfrZdrkZ dks nh xbZA mDr dk;Zo`r ds fo:) rRdkyhu izcU/k funs'kd Jh ts0,y0ljkst }kjk fy[ks x, i= ds lEcU/k esa Hkh d`f"k funs'kd }kjk dksbZ izfrfdz;k ugh O;Dr dh xbZ tks usQsM ds dFku dks fl) djus ds fy, i;kZIr gSA m0iz0 cht fodkl fuxe }kjk usQsM dks bl izdkj ds la'kksf/kr fu.kZ; dh dksbZ lwpuk Hkh ugh nh xbZ vkSj u gh mDr dk;Zo`Rr ds dze es dksbZ vf/kdkfjd vkns'k gh fuxZr fd;k x;kA dk;Zo`Rr esa fy;k x;k] fu.kZ; vkns'k dh lhek es ugh vkrs gS] cfYd dk;Zo`r esa fy, x, fu.kZ; l{ke vf/kdkjh ls vuqeksfnr gksus ds ckn gh ekU; gksrs gSA d`f"k funs'kd }kjk ,d i{kh; dk;Zo`Rr fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA lafonk dh fof/k ds vuqlkj dksbZ Hkh lafonk ,d rjQk ykxw ugh fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;fn dz;kns'k esa bl izdkj dh dksbZ 'krZ ugha gS rks mls dSls ykxw fd;k tk ldrk gSA usQsM }kjk miyC/k djk, x, vfHkys[kks ,oa cht fodkl fuxe }kjk miyC/k djk, x, vfHkys[kksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd 2144-50 dq0 ladj /kku cht dh d`f"k foHkkx ,oa ;w0ih0 ,xzks }kjk fuxZr izkfIr jlhnksa dh Nk;kizfr;ka 'kklu dh i=koyh la0&,l&11@2010 esa jf{kr gSa ,oa usQsM us fcy ds lkFk cht fodkl fuxe dks 2144-50 dq0 ladj /kku cht dh izkIr jlhns miyC/k djk;h FkhA tgka rd 537 dq0 ladj /kku cht dk Hkqxrku dk iz'u gSA usQsM }kjk 537 dq0 ladj /kku cht dh vkiwfrZ cht fuxe ds xksnkeksa ij dh xbZ gS] tSlk fd cht fodkl fuxe us vius i= esa Hkh bldks Lohdkj fd;k gSA cht fodkl fuxe dk dguk gS fd usQsM us dgk Fkk fd 537 dq0 ek=k okil mBk ysxsA ftldk dksbZ lk{; Lo:i vfHkys[k cht fuxe }kjk lfefr dks miyC/k ugha djk;k x;kA bl ij fuxe vkSj vkiwfrZdrkZ vkil esa vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij fopkj foe'kZ dj fuLrkj.k djsaA mi;qDrZ of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa lfefr bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaph gS fd usQsM }kjk 2144-50 dq0 ladj /kku cht dh vkiwfrZ cht fodkl fuxe ds dz;kns'k ,oa MsfLVus'ku ds vuqlkj dh xbZ gSA cht fodkl fuxe dks usQsM }kjk vkiwfrZr cht dh xq.koRrk es Hkh dksbZ f'kdk;r ugh FkhA i=koyh es bl ckr ds rF; ekStwn gS fd cht dh vkiwfrZ xksnkeks ij dh xbZ gSA lafonk fu;eksa ds vuqlkj O;kikfjd ysu&nsu cht fodkl fuxe ds rRdkyhu vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk usQsM ls fd;k x;k gS] blesa usQsM dk dksbZ nks"k ugh gSA vr% lfefr ds erkuqlkj usQsM }kjk vkiwfrZr dqy 2144-50 dq0 ladj /kku cht dk Hkqxrku cht fodkl fuxe }kjk rRdky dj fn, tkus dh laLrqfr dh tkrh gSA"

It is also stated that one of the Member of the three Members Committee was the Director of U.P. State Seed Certificate Agency and despite the recommendation for payment made by the Committee, the due amount has not been paid to the Supplier (petitioners).

In view of the aforesaid factual background, the Supplier (petitioners) have approached this Court for the reliefs quoted hereinabove.

In the instant case, this Court on 07.05.2019 passed the following order:-

"Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that vide document placed on record as Annexure-1 dated 29.5.2009, an order of purchase of seeds was placed.
It has been clearly mentioned in the document dated 29.5.2009 that 90% price of supplied seeds shall be paid by the U.P. Seed Development Corporation (in short, Corporation) within thirty days on getting the invoice with storage receipts and rest 10% price to be paid either within three months or on the basis of performance of the crop.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn attention of the Court towards document, Annexure-3 dated 14.9.2012. In the document, it has been said that for Khareef 2009, National Agricultural cooperative Marketing Federation of India (in short, NAFED) supplied hybrid paddy seeds to U.P. Seed Development Corporation. The Corporation, in turn, delivered the said seed in the godowns of Agriculture Department and U.P. State Agro. NAFED is demanding the payment of supplied seeds from the Corporation. A Committee of three senior State functionaries was constituted to resolve the issues.
Learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court towards document, Annexure-4 dated 27.12.2012 vide which said three Member committee came to the conclusion that seed weighing 2144.50 quintals had been supplied, of which payment is required to be made immediately. Recommendation has accordingly been made.
2. Learned counsel for respondents U.P. Seed Development Corporation (respondents 3 and 4) Mr. V.P. Nag, Advocate contends that the amount is disputed.
3. On a query of the Court, learned counsel has not been able to dispute that the enquiry committee of three members - one Under Secretary, Agriculture, one Additional Commissioner, Housing and Secretary, U.P. Housing Board who was Chairman of the Committee and Director, U.P. State Seed Certification Agency was constituted.
Mr. Nag has also not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any document by which it has been held as a matter of fact that the enquiry report furnished by three-Member enquiry committee was faulty; or has been set aside.
Mr. V.P. Nag wants to suggest that State of U.P. through Agriculture Department is required to make payment to the Corporation. The Corporation would make the payment to NAFED and NAFED would make the payment to the petitioners.
4. We are shocked at the kind of defence being taken on behalf of the Corporation.
Admittedly, all the three agencies are State entities. It is reasonably expected of all the State agencies to resolve the dispute and make payment for the goods supplied. Prima facie, it appears that one after the other excuse is being given to the Court so that payment is not made to the petitioners.
We are making this observation in view of the findings recorded by the Committee vide document Annexure-4 (supra) vide which it has been found, as a matter of fact that the petitioners did supply the seed, however, payment has not been made.
5. We hereby direct that respondents 1 to 4 shall resolve the issue by the next date of listing and file affidavit(s) after resolving the matter.
6. The writ Court reasonably expects that hyper-technical objections would not be taken so as not to pay the dues to the petitioners. State and State agencies are not expected to behave like common litigants.
In case needful is not done, the Court would consider summoning the heads of the Corporation and NAFED and Secretary of the concerned Department to the court to furnish an explanation. It is most unfortunate that the three State entities on account of their individual differences are not passing logical and reasonable orders.
7. List on 4.7.2019."

The above quoted order was passed after filing of counter affidavit dated 13.12.2015 and supplementary counter affidavit dated 07.05.2019 on behalf of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, i.e. Nigam, the concern which issued the order dated 29.05.2009 and pursuant to which the supply was made by the Supplier and by which some payment was made to the NAFED, as per the order dated 29.05.2009.

It is relevant to point out that the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam is the instrumentality of the State and is covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Keeping in view the order dated 07.05.2019, the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 filed the affidavit dated 03.07.2019 and 09.08.2019. The State also filed the affidavit dated 09.08.2019. The NAFED also filed the affidavit dated 04.07.2019.

After considering the affidavits filed by the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, this Court after reproducing the relevant portion of the affidavits filed by the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam and the affidavit of the State Government as well as the affidavit filed by the NAFED and after considering the judgments of the Apex Court, passed the following order on 13.08.2019:-

"Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Gist of the issue raised by the petitioners is reflected in order dated 7.5.2019. The order reads as under:-
"1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that vide document placed on record as Annexure-1 dated 29.5.2009, an order of purchase of seeds was placed.
It has been clearly mentioned in the document dated 29.5.2009 that 90% price of supplied seeds shall be paid by the U.P. Seed Development Corporation (in short, Corporation) within thirty days on getting the invoice with storage receipts and rest 10% price to be paid either within three months or on the basis of performance of the crop.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn attention of the Court towards document, Annexure-3 dated 14.9.2012. In the document, it has been said that for Khareef 2009, National Agricultural cooperative Marketing Federation of India (in short, NAFED) supplied hybrid paddy seeds to U.P. Seed Development Corporation. The Corporation, in turn, delivered the said seed in the godowns of Agriculture Department and U.P. State Agro. NAFED is demanding the payment of supplied seeds from the Corporation. A Committee of three senior State functionaries was constituted to resolve the issues.
Learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court towards document, Annexure-4 dated 27.12.2012 vide which said three Member committee came to the conclusion that seed weighing 2144.50 quintals had been supplied, of which payment is required to be made immediately. Recommendation has accordingly been made.
2. Learned counsel for respondents U.P. Seed Development Corporation (respondents 3 and 4) Mr. V.P. Nag, Advocate contends that the amount is disputed.
3. On a query of the Court, learned counsel has not been able to dispute that the enquiry committee of three members - one Under Secretary, Agriculture, one Additional Commissioner, Housing and Secretary, U.P. Housing Board who was Chairman of the Committee and Director, U.P. State Seed Certification Agency was constituted.
Mr. Nag has also not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any document by which it has been held as a matter of fact that the enquiry report furnished by three-Member enquiry committee was faulty; or has been set aside.
Mr. V.P. Nag wants to suggest that State of U.P. through Agriculture Department is required to make payment to the Corporation. The Corporation would make the payment to NAFED and NAFED would make the payment to the petitioners.
4. We are shocked at the kind of defence being taken on behalf of the Corporation.
Admittedly, all the three agencies are State entities. It is reasonably expected of all the State agencies to resolve the dispute and make payment for the goods supplied. Prima facie, it appears that one after the other excuse is being given to the Court so that payment is not made to the petitioners.
We are making this observation in view of the findings recorded by the Committee vide document Annexure-4 (supra) vide which it has been found, as a matter of fact that the petitioners did supply the seed, however, payment has not been made.
5. We hereby direct that respondents 1 to 4 shall resolve the issue by the next date of listing and file affidavit(s) after resolving the matter.
6. The writ Court reasonably expects that hyper-technical objections would not be taken so as not to pay the dues to the petitioners. State and State agencies are not expected to behave like common litigants.
In case needful is not done, the Court would consider summoning the heads of the Corporation and NAFED and Secretary of the concerned Department to the court to furnish an explanation. It is most unfortunate that the three State entities on account of their individual differences are not passing logical and reasonable orders.
7. List on 4.7.2019."

2. Learned counsel for the respondents viz, Sri H.G.S. Parihar Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.P. Nag appearing for respondent no. 3 and 4 i.e. U.P. Beez Vikas Nigam, Sri Vijyant Nigam learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and 5 are ad idem that though some payment is due to be made to the petitioners, however on account of a dispute between NAFED (respondent No.2 and 5), U.P. Beez Vikas Nigam (respondents 3 and 4) and Agriculture Department the payment is not being released.

Learned counsels are also ad idem that a committee was constituted for the precise purpose of clarifying facts. Report of the committee also makes it evident that money is required to be released to the petitioners, however is not being released.

3. In deference to our order, affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents. We would like to extract paragraphs 6 to 8 from the affidavit filed on behalf of U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam, Lucknow, respondents 3 and 4:-

" 6. That in the meeting dated 27.06.2019 it also revealed and accepted that U.P. Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. already paid amount against 181.95 Qts of supplied seeds while Directorate of Agriculture U.P. paid amount against 369.32 Qts of supplied seeds.
In the meeting dated 27.06.2019 it is also resolved that the Managing Director U.P. Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd and Director Agriculture U.P. Lucknow shall make payment of remaining amount against respective quantity of seeds received by them viz. 768.90 Qts. & 692.80 Qts after adjusting amount already paid, to the U.P. Beez Vikas Nigam and the Nigam will make remaining payment against said quantity of seeds stock i.e. 1461.70 Qts. (768.90 Qts. + 692.80 Qts.= 1461.70 Qts.) after adjusting amount already paid to NAFED.
7. That on the basis of decision taken in the meeting dated 27.06.19, after scrutiny of documents and in presence of all the parties named hereinabove, order dated- 02.07.19 was issued by the Government directing respective parties to insure compliance & payment accordingly. The photo copy of order dated-02.07.2019 is filed as Annexure No-SCA-2 to this affidavit.
8. That after order dated 02.07.2019 another order, in reminder, dated-31 July 2019 is also issued by the Government directing the respective parties to ensure payment as determined in meeting dated 27.06.2019 and directed by order dated 02.07.19. True photo copy of order dated-31.07.2019 is filed as Annexure No. SCA-3 to this affidavit."

4. We would also like to extract paragraph 5,6 and 7 from affidavit filed on behalf of State of U.P. through Joint Secretary, Agriculture Department, U.P. Lucknow. The contents read as under:-

"5. That in the meeting dated 27.06.19 headed by the Principal Secretary Agriculture, documents regarding alleged supplied quantity of seeds as well as store receipts issued against seeds stock received at different destinations against alleged supply have been scrutinized in presence of all the parties named herein above and After scrutiny of documents it was found that against 864.90 Qts. of alleged supply of Hybride paddy seeds by the NAFED only 768.90 Qts. of seeds were supplied to the U.P. Agro Industrial corporation Ltd. at different destinations and on receiving respective quantity of seeds at different destinations/places, store receipts against quantity of seeds received at particular destination was issued by the authorized persons after receiving seeds which quantifies total 768.90 Qts. seeds supplied to U.P. Agro Industrial corporation Ltd. And in the similar manner against alleged supply 1279.60 Qts. of Hybride paddy seeds to the Director Agriculture by the NAFED, only 692.80 Qts. of seeds were supplied to the different destinations of Directorate of Agriculture U.P. and on receiving respective quantity of seeds at different destinations, store receipts were issued by the authorized persons after receiving respective quantity of seeds which quantifies total supply of 692.80 Qts. seeds to Director Agriculture.

6. That in the meeting dated 27.06.2019 it also revealed and accepted that U.P. Agro Industrial corporation Ltd. already paid amount against 181.95 Qts of supplied seeds while Directorate of Agriculture U.P. paid amount against 369.32 Qts of supplied seeds. In the meeting dated 27.06.2019 it is also resolved that the Managing Director U.P. Agro Industrial corporation Ltd and Director Agriculture U.P. Lucknow shall make payment of remaining amount against respective quantity of seeds received by them viz. 768.90 Qts. & 692.80 Qts after adjusting amount already paid, to the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam and the Nigam will make remaining payment against said quantity of seeds stock i.e. 1461.70 Qts. (768.90 Qts. + 692.80 Qts= 1461.70 Qts.) after adjusting amount already paid to NAFED.

7. That on the basis of decision taken in the meeting dated-27.06.19, after scrutiny of documents etc and in presence of all the parties named hereinabove, order dated- 02.07.19 was issued directing respective parties to insure compliance & payment as per previous order dated 07.05.2014 accordingly. True photo copy of order dated-02.07.2019 and 07-05-2014 is filed as Annexure No-A-2 to this affidavit."

5. The stand of NAFED respondent No. 2 and 5 is reflected in paragraphs 16 to 26 of affidavit dated 4.7.2019 sworn by Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma posted as Branch Manager of Lucknow Branch, NAFED which is extracted as under:-

" 16. That it is submitted that the petitioner supplied 2681.5 qtls. Hybrid Paddy Seed to the respondent No.3 and 4 on behalf of the answering respondents/NAFED as per the Agreement for Purchase of Seeds dated 27-10-2008.
17. That after supply of the total seeds, the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam (hereinafter referred to as "the Nigam") on the initial level asked the NAFED to take back 537 qtls. of the Seed vide letter dated 28-08-2009. True copy of the letter dated 28-08-2009 issued by the Nigam is annexed as Annexure No. AC-2.
18. That it is submitted that there was no clause in the tender regarding taking back of the stock after supply.
19. That the NAFED specifically denied to take back the stock of 537 qtls of seeds and the NAFED supplied the seeds as per the demand made by the Nigam within prescribed time limit, vide letter dated 04-09-2009 and further requested to release the balance outstanding amount against the supplied as per terms of supply. True copy of the letter dated 04/09/2009 is annexed as Annexure No.AC-3.
20. That it is very pertinent to mention at this juncture that the Nigam itself concedes that there is no provision for taking back the seeds as can be perused from the letters dated 29-12-2009 and 04-02-2010 issued by the Nigam to U.P. State Agro Industrial Corp. and Director Agriculture U.P. respectively, but yet not releasing the outstanding dues to the NAFED due to which the petitioner could not be paid since last 10 years. True copies of the letters dated 29-12-2009 and 04-02-2010 are annexed herewith as Annexure No.AC-4 and AC-5.
21. That the State Government also constituted a committee for deciding the dispute between the Nigam and the NAFED as already stated in the writ petition itself.
22. That the committee gave its recommendation to pay the dues for the 2144.5 qtls of seeds. True copy of the report of the committee meetings dated 27-12-2012 is annexed as Annexure No.AC-6.
23. That the said recommendation was accepted by the State Government and directions were issued to pay the dues to the NAFED but the NIGAM did not paid the amount to the NAFED till today.
24. That the amount for 537 qntls. of seeds is also kept pending with the NIGAM which is also required to be released in favour of the NAFED immediately.
25. That it is submitted that the answering respondents are continuously pursuing the matter from their end but the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam and the Agriculture department dragging the matter since last around 10 years and withheld the payment towards NAFED for the seeds supplied by the petitioners on behalf of the NAFED.
26. That the petitioners as well as the answering respondents suffered immensely for the huge amount blocked by the respondent No.1 and 3, for no valid reasons."

6. It is the common case of the respondents that the petitioners entered into an agreement with NAFED. Only NAFED can be held responsible.

Learned counsel for the petitioners however contends that the payment due towards the petitioners is not being released on account of a dispute between the Agriculture Department of U.P. State, NAFED and U.P. Beez Vikas Nigam. It has been projected before the Court that it is under constrained circumstances that all the said persons have been impleaded as respondents.

7. Article 226 and 227 are the parts of the Constitution of India which define the power of the High Court to issue writs.

Article 226 empowers the High courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases), directions orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them.

In the case in hand we are concerned with the power to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, and we are required to consider as to under what circumstances the said writ can be issued.

It has been held in various judicial pronouncements that issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the from of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

Writ of mandamus is issued as a command to an inferior court or ordering a person to perform a public or statutory duty. However, the person who seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus is required to show denial of his legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something, and he abstains from doing it.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered the issue in the following judgments, in the following terms:-

In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain and Anr., [(2008) 2 SCC 280], it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Paras 11 and 12 in the following terms:-
"11. The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.:
"Note 187.--Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed.
*** Note 192.--Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty.
*** Note 196.--Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned--an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances.
*** Note 206.-- ... The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action."

12. These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh[(1977) 4 SCC 145 : AIR 1977 SC 2149] after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah [AIR 1966 SC 334] , Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v. Nalanda College [AIR 1962 SC 1210] and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [(1973) 1 SCC 485 : AIR 1973 SC 964] this Court observed as follows in para 15 of the Reports (SCC): (Sipahi Singh case [(1977) 4 SCC 145 : AIR 1977 SC 2149] , SCC pp. 152-53) "15. ... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. ... In the instant case, it has not been shown by Respondent 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on Respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that Respondent 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same."

Therefore, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. The respondents have not been able to show that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on the appellant Bank to declare their account as NPA from 31-3-2000 and apply RBI Guidelines to their case."

(emphasized by us) The following has been held by a bench of 3 Hon'ble Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Union of India and Anr. v. S B Vohra and Ors., [(2004) 2 SCC 150] in paras 12, 13 and 32:-

"Mandamus vis-à-vis Article 229(2) of the Constitution
12. Mandamus literally means a command. The essence of mandamus in England was that it was a royal command issued by the King's Bench (now Queen's Bench) directing performance of a public legal duty.
13. A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in himself. A writ of mandamus is issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform but has failed and/or neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates from either in discharge of a public duty or by operation of law. The writ of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature. The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted.
****
32. It is not possible to lay down the standard exhaustively as to in what situation a writ of mandamus will issue and in what situation it will not. In other words, exercise of its discretion by the court will also depend upon the law which governs the field, namely, whether it is a fundamental law or an ordinary law."

In State of UP and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors., [(1996) 9 SCC 309], the following has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Para 10:-

"10. Notwithstanding the aforesaid Statutory Rule and without applying the mind to the aforesaid Rule the High Court relying upon some earlier decisions of the Court came to hold that the list does not expire after a period of one year which on the face of it is erroneous. Further question that arises in this context is whether the High Court was justified in issuing the mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the writ petitioners. Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. This being the position and in view of the Statutory Rules contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules we really fail to understand how the High Court could issue the impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included in the select list prepared on 4-4-1987 and the list no longer survived after one year and the rights, if any, of persons included in the list did not subsist. In the course of hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, no doubt have pointed out some materials which indicate that the Administrative Authorities have made the appointments from a list beyond the period of one year from its preparation. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in some cases pursuant to the direction of the Court some appointments have been made but in some other cases it might have been done by the appointing authority. Even though we are persuaded to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that on some occasions appointments have been made by the appointing authority from a select list even after the expiry of one year from the date of selection but such an illegal action of the appointing authority does not confer a right on an applicant to be enforced by a court under Article 226 of the Constitution. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that such appointments by the appointing authority have been made contrary to the provisions of the Statutory Rules for some unknown reason and we deprecate the practice adopted by the appointing authority in making such appointments contrary to the Statutory Rules. But at the same time it is difficult for us to sustain the direction given by the High Court since, admittedly, the life of the select list prepared on 4-4-1987 had expired long since and the respondents who claim their rights to be appointed on the basis of such list did not have a subsisting right on the date they approached the High Court. We may not be understood to imply that the High Court must issue such direction, if the writ petition was filed before the expiry of the period of one year and the same was disposed of after the expiry of the statutory period. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours it is not necessary to deal with the question whether the stand of the State Government that there existed one vacancy in the year 1987 is correct or not."

In Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi v. KS Jagannathan and Anr., [(1986) 2 SCC 679], the following has been held by a bench of 3 Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Paras 18 to 20:-

"18. The first contention urged by learned counsel for the appellants was that the Division Bench of the High Court could not issue a writ of mandamus to direct a public authority to exercise its discretion in a particular manner. There is a basic fallacy underlying this submission--both with respect to the order of the Division Bench and the purpose and scope of the writ of mandamus. The High Court had not issued a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus was the relief prayed for by the respondents in their writ petition. What the Division Bench did was to issue directions to the appellants in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, every High Court has the power to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any government, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, directions, orders, or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto and certiorari or any of them, for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose. In Dwarkanath v. ITO [AIR 1966 SC 81:(1965) 3 SCR 536, 540] this Court pointed out that Article 226 is designedly couched in a wide language in order not to confine the power conferred by it only to the power to issue prerogative writs as understood in England, such wide language being used to enable the High Courts "to reach injustice wherever it is found" and "to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country." In Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa [(1975) 2 SCC 649 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 362 : AIR 1975 SC 2226 : (1976) 1 SCR 667, 676] this Court held that the powers of the courts in England as regards the control which the Judiciary has over the Executive indicate the minimum limit to which the courts in this country would be prepared to go in considering the validity of orders passed by the government or its officers.
19. Even had the Division Bench issued a writ of mandamus giving the directions which it did, if circumstances of the case justified such directions, the High Court would have been entitled in law to do so for even the courts in England could have issued a writ of mandamus giving such directions. Almost a hundred and thirty years ago, Martin, B., in Mayor of Rochester v. Regina [1858 EB & E 1024, 1032, 1034] said:
"But, were there no authority upon the subject, we should be prepared upon principle to affirm the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. That court has power, by the prerogative writ of mandamus, to amend all errors which tend to the oppression of the subject or other misgovernment, and ought to be used when the law has provided no specific remedy, and justice and good government require that there ought to be one for the execution of the common law or the provisions of a statute: Comyn's Digest, Mandamus (A).... Instead of being astute to discover reasons for not applying this great constitutional remedy for error and misgovernment, we think it our duty to be vigilant to apply it in every case to which, by any reasonable construction, it can be made applicable."

The principle enunciated in the above case was approved and followed in King v. Revising Barrister for the Borough of Hanley[(1912) 3 KB 518, 528-9, 531] . In Hochtief Gammon case [(1975) 2 SCC 649 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 362 : AIR 1975 SC 2226 : (1976) 1 SCR 667, 676] this Court pointed out (at p. 675 of Reports: SCC p. 656) that the powers of the courts in relation to the orders of the government or an officer of the government who has been conferred any power under any statute, which apparently confer on them absolute discretionary powers, are not confined to cases where such power is exercised or refused to be exercised on irrelevant considerations or on erroneous ground or mala fide, and in such a case a party would be entitled to move the High Court for a writ of mandamus. In Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968 AC 997] the House of Lords held that where Parliament had conferred a discretion on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to appoint a committee of investigation so that it could be used to promote the policy and objects of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958, which were to be determined by the construction of the Act which was a matter of law for the court and though there might be reasons which would justify the Minister in refusing to refer a complaint to a committee of investigation, the Minister's discretion was not unlimited and if it appeared that the effect of his refusal to appoint a committee of investigation was to frustrate the policy of the Act, the court was entitled to interfere by an order of mandamus. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., vol. I, para 89, it is stated that the purpose of an order of mandamus "is to remedy defects of justice; and accordingly it will issue, to the end that justice may be done, in all cases where there is a specific legal right and no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right; and it may issue in cases where, although there is an alternative legal remedy, yet that mode of redress is less convenient, beneficial and effectual."

20. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion."

(emphasized by us)

9.  From the facts and circumstances emerging from the pleadings in the writ petition, and written statements filed on behalf of the respondents, relevant portions of which have been extracted above, it becomes evident that petitioners supplied seed under an agreement with NAFED. NAFED has already sold the seed. However, payment due towards the petitioners is not being released on account of dispute between three government agencies. The respondents are behaving like ordinary litigants which is not acceptable, and is unfortunate.

10. In our view and in view of admitted position it becomes evident that the petitioners have been able to substantiate their legal right to get paid for the seed supplied to the government agencies. It is further evident from the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents that although respondents are obliged under law in tune with their public duty to make payment for the material supplied by the petitioners, however the needful is not being done. Legal duty enjoined on the respondents is not being performed. In such circumstances, it becomes the duty of the writ court/constitutional court to compel performance of public duties by the respondents.

11. It being admitted by the respondents that money is required to be paid to the petitioners for the seed already supplied, we have no hesitation in holding that it is the obligation of the respondents to do the needful.

We are conscious of the fact that ordinarily the writ court will not interfere in such matters of releasing payment, however the facts and circumstances of this case are peculiar insomuch as the respondents admit that the petitioners have supplied seed, for which payment is required to be made, however is not being made on account of inter se dispute.

The respondents can resolve their dispute, but cannot deny payment to the petitioners for indefinite period.

12. Considering the fact that the agreement is between the petitioners and NAFED, we deem it just and proper to direct NAFED to resolve its dispute on or before the next date of listing and ensure the amount payable to the petitioners is paid. The petitioners can not be denied their right on account of inter se dispute between various State/Government Agencies. We express our displeasure in regard to the conduct of the respondents in this regard.

13. We further make it clear that in case by the next date of listing payment is not released to the petitioners, Managing Director, National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation (NAFED) shall be held responsible and shall be burdened with costs in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the petitioners. This provision is being made against the NAFED because it is NAFED which had entered into an agreement with the petitioners and it is the NAFED to whom the seed was supplied.

14. We direct that a copy of this order be conveyed to Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, U.P., Lucknow who shall take notice of the happenings in the department administered by him. A person who supplies seed is not being paid on account of inter se dispute amongst various State agencies.

15. Let a copy of this order be conveyed to respondent No.1 through Senior Registrar of this Court, as also through Sri Raj Baksh Singh learned counsel for the State.

16. List on 18.9.2019.

17. Request for adjournment shall not be entertained on behalf of any counsel on the next date of listing. This court would also consider deduction of the cost amount from the salary of the officers found responsible in delaying the process of the Court."

After the order passed by this Court on 13.08.2019, the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam filed the affidavits dated 18.09.2019 and 06.11.2019 and also the affidavit dated 28.11.2019. In view of the statement made in the aforesaid affidavits, it is clear that the stand of the opposite party No. 3 is based on the letter dated 02.07.2019. According to the same, the Supplier-petitioners is entitled to payment of 1461.70 quintal of seeds supplied by the petitioner. The letter dated 02.07.2019 on reproduction reads as under:-

"egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa izeq[k lfpo] d`f"k] mRrj izns'k 'kklu dh v/;{krk esa fnukad 27 twu] 2019 dks izca/k funs'kd] ;w0ih0 LVsV ,xzks b.MªfLVª;y dkjiksjs'ku fy0] y[kuÅ] d`f"k funs'kky;] mRrj izns'k] y[kuÅ] uSQsM] y[kuÅ 'kk[kk rFkk mRrj izns'k cht fodkl fuxe] y[kuÅ ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk gq, fopkj&foe'kZ dk d`i;k lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA 2- mDr cSBd esa izca/k funs'kd] ;w0ih0 LVsV ,xzks b.MªfLVª;y dkjiksjs'ku fy0 dks cht dEiUkh }kjk vkiwfrZr gkbZfczM cht dqy 864-90 dqary ds lkis{k ;w0ih0 LVsV ,xzks b.MªfLVª;y dkjiksjs'ku fy0 ds }kjk 768-90 dqary cht izkIr djus dh LVksj jlhn izkIr gksus dk mYys[k fd;k x;kA blh rjg ls d`f"k funs'kd dkss uSQsM }kjk dqy vkiwfrZr gkbZfczM cht 1279-60 dqary ds lkis{k ek= 692-80 dqary dh LVksj jlhn izkIr gksuk d`f"k funs'kky; }kjk crk;k x;k gSA vr% dqy 1461-70 dqary cht vkiwfrZ dh LVksj jlhn izkIr gksus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA mDRk esa ls ;w0ih0 LVsV ,xzks ds }kjk 181-95 daqry rFkk d`f"k funs'kd ds }kjk 369-32 dqary ladj cht ds ewY; ds Hkqxrku dk mYys[k fd;k x;kA 3- pwafd ;g izdj.k cgqr iqjkuk gks x;k gS] vr% mDr cSBd esa fu;ekuqlkj 'kklu ds iwoZ vkns'k fnukad 07 ebZ] 2014 ds vuqlkj izh&vkfMV ds ckn mDr vkiwfrZr cht dk Hkqxrku djus gsrq cSBd esa iqu% funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA 4- vr% eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd izdj.k esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 07 ebZ] 2019 ds vuqikyu es fu;ekuqlkj 'kklu ds iwoZ vkns'k fnukad 07 ebZ] 2014 ds vuqlkj fcyksa dk izh&vkfMV djkrs gq, Lo;a LkUrq"V gksdj Hkqxrku djus dk d"V djsaA d`r dk;Zokgh ls 'kklu dks Hkh voxr djkus dk d"V djsaA"

After the order dated 13.08.2019, the NAFED also filed its affidavit dated 19.11.2019 in which it has been stated that total quantity of seed supplied by the Supplier-petitionersis 2681050 quintals. The opposite party No. 3 and 4/U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam should pay the total sum of Rs. 4,82,67,000.00. It is also stated therein that U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam has not disputed that 2144.50 and 537 quintal of seed was not supplied to it or to U.P. Agro Industrial Corporation on its instructions. It is also stated in the said affidavit that the outstanding dues are to the tune of Rs. 2,19,56,400.00. The relevant portion of the affidavit on reproduction reads as under:-

"3. That till date the NAFED has received Payment of Rs. 66,47,760.00 on 24.11.2011 for 369.32 quintals of seeds quantity, Rs. 32,75,100.00 on 26.08.2014 for 181.95 quintals of seeds quantity, Rs. 26,87,400.00 on 17.09.2019 for 149.30 quintals of seeds quantity, Rs. 58,22,640.00 on 18.09.2019 for 323.48 quintals of seeds qunatity and Rs. 78,77,700.00 on 19.10.2019 for 437.65 quintals of seeds quantity, thus total amount of Rs. 2,63,10,600.00 (Rupees Two crores sixty three lacs ten thousand six hundred only) has been received for 1461.70 Quintals of Seeds quantity, which has been duly paid by NAFED to the petitioner, immediately the same was received from the Respondent No. 3 and 4, after deducting the commission.
4. That the total quantity of 2681.50 quintals of seeds were supplied to the Respondent No. 3 and 4, by the petitioner on behalf of the answering respondent for which the Respondent No. 3 and 4 were liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 4,82,67,000.00 hence, now after deducting the already paid amount, the Respondent No. 3 and 4 are liable to pay Rs. 2,19,56,400.00 (Rs. Two crores nineteen lacs fifty six thousand four hundred only) for the remaining quantity of 1219.80 quintals of seeds supplied to the respondent No. 3 and 4. The respondent No. 3 and 4 have made the payments with a great unexplained delay of more than 10 years despite continuous correspondences and reminders made by the Petitioner as well as by the NAFED/answering respondents, hence the respondent No. 3 and 4 are also liable to pay interest upon the outstanding and paid amounts.
5. That the total supplied quantity of 2681.50 quintals of seeds, by the petitioner, is not at all disputed by the State Government or U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam as such U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam itself issued notices to the Director Agriculture and the U.P. Agro Inudstrial Corporation for payments for the said seeds along with interest @ 18%. True copes of the legal notices dated 22.08.2016 sent by the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam to the Director Agriculture and U.P. Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. Lucknow are collectively annexed herewith as Annexure No. SA-2.
6. That the State Government itself asked way back from the U.P. Beej Vkas Nigam about the present position regarding payment of 2144.50 quintals of seeds, vide its letter dated 20.06.2017 but no favourable action was taken by the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam in utter disregard to the direction given by the State Government. True copy of the letter dated 20.06.2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. SA-3.
7. That the petitioner himself filed various letters and correspondences and office orders passed by the State Government and the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam which are not being annexed herewith for the sake of brevity, that also shows that the latches in making the payment to the NAFED by the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam have been committed and still payment of 1219.80 quintals of seeds yet not been made despite the fact that U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam not disputing that 2144.50 quintals of seeds and 537 quintals of seeds not supplied to it or to the U.P. Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. on its instructions, i.e. total 2681.50 quintals.
8. That it is submitted that although there is no dispute regarding supply of seeds, the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam, the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam still withholding payment of 1219.80 quintals of seeds, i.e. Rs. 2,19,56,400.00 and as soon as the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam would release the said amount, the same shall be immediately paid to the petitioner.
9. That it is submitted that though the Beej Vikas Nigam had placed order for supply of seeds to NAFED which NAFED passed on to the petitioner, therefore it would not be correct to say that due to dispute between NAFED and Beej Vikas Nigam or other Government agencies because of which the petitioner is not being paid by the State Government and Beej Vikas Nigam.
10. That the NAFED has been standing fully behind the petitioner and supporting his demand for receiving the payment which is contingent upon Beej Vikas Nigam and other agencies making payment to NAFED.
11. That there is no fault of NAFED in Petitioner's not getting payment for the seeds supplied by it to the Nigam and other Government agencies, nor or they are liable to make payment to the Petitioner itself without the payment being received from the Beej Vikas Nigam which it undertakes to pass on to the Petitioner after deducting its commission as soon as received as it has been doing before. In fact the NAFED itself is suffering loss because of the respondent No.1, 3 and 4 no making payment to it and whereby depriving it of its share.
12. That it is submitted that the answering respondents wrote letters dated 27.05.2019, 14.06.2019 and finally on 26.08.2019 for release of the entire payment against the supplies. True copy of the letter dated 26.08.2019 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. SA-4.
13. That the answering respondents filed as Affidavit of Compliance of order dated 07.05.2019, wherein it has already been specifically stated, with documentary proofs, that the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam itself concedes that 2681.50 quintals of seeds were supplied to it which fact has not been disputed by the either party to the present case but the full payment yet not been made by the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam till date.
14. That below is the chart showing the total money received and outstanding as on date;
Dates of actual payment:
Qty. in quintals Rate per Kgs. (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 24.11.2011 369.32 180.00 66,47,760.00 26.08.2014 181.95 180.00 32,75,100.00 17.09.2019 149.30 180.00 26,87,400.00

18.09.2019 323.48 180.00 58,22,640.00 19.10.2019 437.65 180.00 78,77,700.00 Qty. Paid 1461.70 Total received 2,63,10,600.00 Total actual qty.

2681.50 Actual amount 4,82,67,000.00 Balance qty.

1219.80 Balance outstanding 2,19,56,400.00 Excluding interest @ 18% on the above amount.

15. That the aforesaid amounts that is received have been paid to the petitioner, immediately, by the answering respondents, through RTGS after deducting 3% commission which fact is already accepted by the Petitioner.

16. That Rs. 2,19,56,400.00 is still outstanding upon the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam for 1219.80 quintals."

In support of the reliefs sought, learned counsel for the Supplier (petitioners) submitted that the issue with regard to issuing the direction as sought in the present writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court in the order dated 13.08.2019 and accordingly, a direction be issued to make the payment of admitted quantity of seed supplied by the Supplier (petitioners) to the Instrumentalities of the State i.e. Nigam and U.P. Agro Industrial Corporation.

Sri V.P. Nag, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that in compliance of the order dated 07.05.2019, the issue with regard to payment was taken up at the State level and after considering the relevant record, the State Government found that the Supplier is entitled to the payment of 1461.70 quintal of Seed supplied by the Supplier, as appears from the letter dated 02.07.2019.

Further submitted that the required amount of admitted supply of seed has been paid and the writ petition for the payment of admitted supply made by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.

Sri Vijyant Nigam, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 5, on the basis of the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of NAFED, submitted that U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam is admitting the position and the required amount which has to be paid by the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam has not been paid till date. The matter is very old and U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam is now disputing the facts by way of affidavits.

It is further submitted that the NAFED, a registered Cooperative Society as well as the Supplier is entitled to the payment from U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam for the supply made pursuant to the order dated 29.05.2009.

In response to the aforesaid submissions made by Sri V.P. Nag, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the admitted position in the present case could be seen from the report of the three Members Committee. According to the three Members Committee, the supply of 2144.50 quintal of Seed was made by the Supplier (petitioners) through NAFED, accordingly, the three Members Committee recommended for payment of the aforesaid quantity and if the said payment is made by the concerned Authority of the State, then the amount would be released in favour of the Supplier (petitioners) by the NAFED, after receiving the same from the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam.

It is further stated that the letter dated 02.07.2019, on which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam, Sri V.P. Nag, does not dispute the findings recorded by the three Members Committee. The conclusion was drawn by the three Members Committee after considering the relevant record.

It is also submitted that keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the order dated 13.08.2019, passed in the instant writ petition as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553, ABL International Ltd. and others v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others and vide judgment and oder dated 08.03.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2610 of 2019 (M/s Surya Construction v. State of U.P. and others), on which reliance has been placed, wherein it has held that a writ petition against the State or an Instrumentality of the State arising out of a contractual obligation and involving a consequential relief of a monetary claim is maintainable. Accordingly, the prayer is to interfere in the matter.

The judgment and order dated 08.03.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2610 of 2019 (M/s Surya Construction v. State of U.P. and others) on reproduction reads as under:-

"Leave granted.
Having heard learned counsel for all the parties, we find that the present is a case in which payment for extra work by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam has not been made though such work was expressly sanctioned and done to their satisfaction. The appellant before us has had to run from pillar to post to get the money owed to them. By an order dated 21.10.2013, the High Court asked the appellant to make a representation and finally, in a contempt petition moved on 07.02.2014, directed the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to answer this representation. The representation so made was answered by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam as follows:
"Due to aforesaid facts and description it is clear that Rs.113.29 lacs has to be released by Government/Mela Administration against the Budget presented by U.P. Jal Nigam, Magh Mela 2008-09. There is no money available under account of Magh Mela 2008-09 of U.P. Jal Nigam. And could not obtained the rest of amount from the Mela Administration/Government. Therefore, payment regarding M/s. Surya Construction, 323/3, Alopibagh, Allahabad will be paid after availability of the money from the Government."

It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No. 25126/2014, the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2014 dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ['ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others' (2004 (3) SCC 553)].

This being the case and the work having been completed long back in 2009, we direct the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the necessary payment within a period of four weeks from today. Given the long period of delay, interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum may also be awarded.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly."

We have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

We feel it appropriate to mention here that the order dated 13.08.2019, by which the present writ petition has been entertained for the reliefs sought, is unchallenged.

As per the admitted position, in nutshell, the dispute is related with the quantity of seed supplied by the Supplier (petitioners) pursuant to the order dated 29.05.2009. The order/letter dated 02.07.2019 is based on certain bills and on the basis of the same it has been stated therein that the Supplier (petitioners) has supplied only 1461.70 quintal of seed and this order does not dispute the conclusion drawn by the three Members Committee.

One of the Members of the three Members Committee was the Director of U.P. State Seed Certificate Agency.

It appears from the above quoted report of the three Members Committee that while considering the issue of supply made by the petitioners, the three Members Committee considered the work orders issued by the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam and also considered the receipts related to 2144.50 quintal and 537 quintal of seeds supplied by the Supplier to the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam and U.P. Agro Industrial Corporation and after considering the relevant documents concluded as under:-

"mi;qDrZ of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa lfefr bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaph gS fd usQsM }kjk 2144-50 dq0 ladj /kku cht dh vkiwfrZ cht fodkl fuxe ds dz;kns'k ,oa MsfLVus'ku ds vuqlkj dh xbZ gSA cht fodkl fuxe dks usQsM }kjk vkiwfrZr cht dh xq.koRrk es Hkh dksbZ f'kdk;r ugh FkhA i=koyh es bl ckr ds rF; ekStwn gS fd cht dh vkiwfrZ xksnkeks ij dh xbZ gSA lafonk fu;eksa ds vuqlkj O;kikfjd ysu&nsu cht fodkl fuxe ds rRdkyhu vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk usQsM ls fd;k x;k gS] blesa usQsM dk dksbZ nks"k ugh gSA vr% lfefr ds erkuqlkj usQsM }kjk vkiwfrZr dqy 2144-50 dq0 ladj /kku cht dk Hkqxrku cht fodkl fuxe }kjk rRdky dj fn, tkus dh laLrqfr dh tkrh gSA"

We find from the letter dated 02.07.2019, which is quoted above, that the same does not dispute the findings recorded by the three Members Committee and conclusion drawn by it.

Keeping in view the undisputed findings recorded by the three Members Committee and the conclusion drawn therein as well as the observations made by this Court in the order dated 13.08.2019 as well as the admitted facts which are quoted above, we are of the view that the Supplier (petitioners) is entitled to payment of admitted quantity of seed supplied i.e. 2144.50 quintal, which is to be first paid/provided by the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam to NAFED and thereafter, the Supplier (petitioners) would get the same from NAFED.

For the aforesaid reasons and in the peculiar facts of the case as well as keeping in view observations made by this Court in the order dated 13.08.2019, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the opposite parties particularly the opposite party No.3-U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam to pay the amount for the quantity aforesaid i.e. 2144.50 quintal of seed, as recommended by the three Members Committee, to the Supplier (petitioners) by paying the same to NAFED, after deducting the amount already paid, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

In this case, we feel that the simple interest @ 6% would suffice the justice. The interest would be payable if the amount, as directed, is not released in time as provided in this judgment.

Order Date :-14.02.2020 Arun/-