Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Jmd Consultants vs Rajasthan Technical University on 17 May, 2019
Author: Veerendr Singh Siradhana
Bench: Veerendr Singh Siradhana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26230/2018
M/s Jmd Consultants, Proprietor Sandeep Vijay S/o. Shri Prabhu
Lal Vijay Having Its Office At 206, Al-Hatmi Complex, Shopping
Centre, Kota Through Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Gaurav
Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Resident Of
House No. 8, Gulab Bagh, Bajrang Nagar, Kota (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Technical University, Through Its Vice
Chancellor, Rajasthan Technical University, Rawat Bhata
Road, Akeljarhgarh, Kota (Raj.)
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Technical University, Rawat Bhata
Road, Akeljargarh, Kota (Raj.)
3. Dean Faculty Affairs, Rajasthan Technical University,
Rawat Bhata Road, Akeljarhgarh, Kota (Raj.)
4. Professor S.c. Jain, Dean Faculty Affairs, Rajasthan
Technical University, Rawat Bhata Road, Akeljarhgarh,
Kota (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khubi Lal
Dr. S.C. Jain, Professor, RTU, Kota,
respondent No. 4, present in person.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Judgment / Order
17/05/2019
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent
No. 4, present in person along with counsel for the respondents.
Dr. S.C. Jain, Professor, RTU, Kota - respondent No. 4, present in person, while resisting the claim of the petitioner pointed out a variety of discrepancies in items supplied and (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 02:12:54 AM) (2 of 4) [CW-26230/2018] installed. However, he did admit the fact that all these objections were to be recorded and pointed out before confirmation of the supplied items and their installation to the satisfaction of the Committee. It is also not disputed by him that vide annexure - 4, a Committee, consisting of four members and he being head of Computer Engineering Department as 5th member; did approve and accord work completion and confirmation certificate which reads thus:
"This is to confirm that the supplied items cited above and installation of the items are as per purchase order. The items have been installed and demonstrated."
On 26th November, 2016, and by further office order dated 13th July, 2018, the 17th Financial Committee sanctioned a sum of Rs. 21,83,850/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Eighty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Only), to ensure payment according to the financial and administrative approval to the petitioner; yet payment was not released to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that respondent No. 4, addressed a communication dated 2 nd August, 2018, for demonstration of the work of all the equipments supplied vide order involved herein and to provide guarantee/warranty services for one year. Admittedly, there is no dispute about violation of any of the terms and/or conditions of guarantee/warranty.
Taking note of the fact that the respondents did not put in appearance despite service of notice on writ application effected; this Court on 23rd April, 2019, made the following order:
"Despite service of notice on the respondents, none has put in appearance.(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 02:12:54 AM)
(3 of 4) [CW-26230/2018]
This Court is not oblivious of the fact that
the writ application instituted by the
petitioner involves a dispute as to payment
consequent upon completion of the
contract.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even the security deposited has also been refunded to the petitioner in the month of March, 2018; yet the payment due is not being released. It is further pointed out that work contract awarded to the petitioner was completed and confirmation of the supplied items so also installation as per the purchase order, was also demonstrated, as would be evident from the document (Annexure-4). However, for oblique motives, the due payment of the petitioner has been withheld for which a specific allegation has been made against the respondent No.4, who has been served with the copy of the writ application, still has not responded.
The instant case at hand demonstrates the practice in vogue while dealing with the financial matter in the respondent - Rajasthan Technical University - an educational establishment.
In view of the above, respondent No.4 is directed to remain present in person on the next date of hearing to explain the reasons for non-appearance and for not filing of the response to the writ application while withholding the due payment of the petitioner on successful completion of the contract and a sanction order issued for release of the payment due vide office order dated 13th July, 2018.
Matter be listed again on 29th April, 2019.
Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the respondents through Fax."
Respondent No. 4, present in person though impleaded as a party eo-nominee has not filed any counter affidavit denying allegations of malafide levelled against him in the writ application (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 02:12:54 AM) (4 of 4) [CW-26230/2018] while response has been filed on behalf of all the respondents including him.
In the admitted factual matrix aforesaid, prima facie, it is evident that payment of the petitioner has been withheld for reasons best known to respondent No. 4. However, there is no good reason detailed out in the reply, sustainable in law, to withhold the payment of the petitioner after he completed and duly carried the contract and a certificate issued to that effect by the respondents. Further, respondent No. 4, is also one of member of the Committee that confirmed the work conclusion to complete satisfaction Writ application is, accordingly, allowed with cost of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only). The cost shall be recovered from the erring Officer(s)/Official(s) including respondent No. 4.
In the result, the respondents are directed to release the payment of Rs. 21,83,850/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Eighty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Only) to the petitioner forthwith along with interest @ 10% per annum. Compliance of the order shall be ensured within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is presented. Failure to do so would entitle the petitioner to institute contempt proceedings.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J MADAN MEENA /374/100 (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 02:12:54 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)