Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajasthan Technical University vs M/S Jmd Consultants on 29 January, 2020
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1048/2019
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, Akeljarhgarh, 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.)
----Appellants
Versus
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.)
----Respondent
Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1235/2019 S.c. Jain S/o Sh. P.l. Jain, Aged About 57 Years, Former Dean Faculty Affairs, Rajasthan Technical University, Rawatbhata Road, Akeljarhgarh, Kota. R/o B-2 Staff Colony, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota 324010
----Appellant Versus
1. M/s. Jmd Consultants, Proprietor Sandeep Vijay S/o Sh.
Prabhu Lal Vijay Having Its Office At 206, Al-Hatmi Complex, Shopping Centre, Kota Through Power Of Attorney Holder Sh. Gaurav Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, R/o House No. 8, Gulabh Bagh, Bajrang Nagar, Kota.
2. Rajasthan Technical University, Through Its Vice Chancellor, Rajasthan Technical University, Rawatbhata Road, Akeljarhgarh, Kota.
(Downloaded on 01/02/2020 at 08:49:51 PM)
(2 of 6) [SAW-1048/2019]
3. Registrar, Rajasthan Technical University, Rawatbhata Road, Akeljarhgarh, Kota.
4. Dean, Faculty Affairs, Rajasthan Technical University, Rawatbhata Road, Akeljarhgarh, Kota.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Bhargava
Mr. C.P. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma
Mr. Narendra Kumar Saini
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Judgment
29/01/2020
1. These two appeals are taken up together and are being decided by this common order.
2. D.B. Special Appeal No.1048/2019 has been filed by the University and the connected D.B. Special Appeal No.1235/2019 has been filed by the respondent No.4, Shri S.C. Jain, seeking to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.26230/2018, who by judgment dated 17.12.2019 allowed the writ application filed by the private respondent herein and directed release of payment of `21,83,850/- to the petitioner by the University forthwith along with interest @ 10% per annum apart from directing levy of cost of `40,000/- on private respondent No.4 and appellant herein.
3. In course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the University limited his submissions to the direction of the learned Single Judge directing payment of interest @ 10% per annum, whereas learned counsel for the appellant in appeal No.1235/2019 prayed for setting aside the direction issued by the (Downloaded on 01/02/2020 at 08:49:51 PM) (3 of 6) [SAW-1048/2019] learned Single Judge directing levy of cost of Rs. 40,000/- on the appellant herein.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent vociferously argued and supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and also submitted that denial of payment has amounted to depriving the private respondent from the utilization of his money which was due to be payable to him. Insofar as levy of cost is concerned, the learned counsel for the sole respondent in SAW No.1048/2019 submitted that interest was correctly levied on account of clear error of law committed by the appellant in SAW No.1235/2019, who was then the Dean of the Faculty Affairs, who after having counter signed Annexure-4 to the writ application which evidenced that the items have been installed as well as demonstrated on 26.11.2016, even though the Dean had recommended the University for release of payment and thereafter while the Registrar of the University under Annexure-11 to the writ application had issued direction for payment to the private respondent from out of the Budget of Year 2018-19. The Dean thereafter by letter dated 02.08.2018 once again called upon the private respondent to demonstrate the working of all equipments and also to extend the warranty services for one year therefrom.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, we find from Annexure-4 to the writ application that the said document was counter signed by all members of the committee confirming the fact that the items have been supplied and installation of all items has been made as per the order issued by the University. It was further confirmed in the said document that the items have been installed and demonstrated, consequently the (Downloaded on 01/02/2020 at 08:49:51 PM) (4 of 6) [SAW-1048/2019] obligation of the private respondents for warranty existed for a period of one year from the date of installation and demonstration. The said period came to an end on 25.11.2017. We find from the document appended to the writ application that, in fact, there existed effectively no dispute between the parties viz-a-viz entitlement of payment of the petitioner. In the absence of any dispute, we are of the considered view that there was no dispute existed for resorting to process of arbitration, as claimed for by the University.
6. Apart from above, we are clearly of the considered view from the document appended as Annexure-4 as well as Annexure- 11 to the writ application that the project was funded through World Bank and the project closure date was 31.07.2017. From the minutes of meeting of 17th Finance Committee of the University at page 79 of the writ application, it appears that there had been delay in forwarding the bills of the respondent to the National Project Implementation Unit (NPIU) within the project closure date i.e. 31.07.2017. This apparently was the reason for non-release of the money in favour of the private respondent. Thereafter the University took a decision to make financial arrangements through Budget of Year 2018-19 and accordingly, sanction was accorded under Annexure-11 dated 13.07.2018. It appears from the communication of the Dean Faculty Affairs dated 02.08.2018 that the issue of demonstration and working of the equipments as well as providing further guarantee and warranty services for one year once again was raised.
7. On a consideration of the submissions advanced as well as perusal of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that, in fact, the University raised no dispute in the matter of (Downloaded on 01/02/2020 at 08:49:51 PM) (5 of 6) [SAW-1048/2019] supply and installation of the equipments supplied by the respondent. On the contrary, the apparent reason for non-release of the payment to the supplier was on account of delay caused by the University in forwarding the bills to the NPIU. Consequently the University took a decision to make payment to the petitioner from out of the Budget 2018-19.
8. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as in the case at hand, there was no dispute at all until the letter was issued by the Dean Faculty Affairs on 02.08.2018. What is more surprising is that not only self same professor raised objection on 02.08.2018, but the same professor had also counter signed Annexure-4 which was technical verification of the work completion report, which as noted hereinabove, confirmed the installation and demonstration of the equipments supplied. Therefore, we are of the considered view that no case is made out by the appellant herein for interference with the impugned judgment. However, keeping in view the fact that the appellant is Rajasthan Technical University, Kota and funds are to be released from the State funds and the Counsel for the appellant University limited his submissions to the prayer for considering the removal of the direction for payment of interest, learned counsel for the private respondent, on instructions received from his client in Court, fairly conceded that interest may be decided by the Court and left it to the Court to decide the issue in this matter.
8. Similarly, learned counsel appearing for the Dean, appellant in D.B. SAW No.1235/2019 prayed for waiver of the direction imposing Rs.40,000/- as cost on his client and also brought to the notice of the Court the fact that the appellant (Downloaded on 01/02/2020 at 08:49:51 PM) (6 of 6) [SAW-1048/2019] herein had made his recommendations on 13.07.2018 to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the University and consequently, he prays that the direction for levy of cost may be suitably amended.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and keeping in view the interest of all parties concerned, since University's Counsel has limited his submissions to the levy of interest, we are of the considered view that the interest as directed @ 10% per annum stands modified to the extent of a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- as interest. The said amount payable to the private respondent-supplier shall be released within a period of three weeks from today. Insofar as the direction to pay cost by the appellant in D.B. SAW No.1235/2019 is concerned, the same is set aside and the cost is waived.
10. We further direct the appellant University to file a compliance report within four weeks before this Court.
11. We record our appreciation for fairness of the learned counsel for the University as well as the respondents.
12. With the above observations, both the appeals are disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ KKC/JKP/s-64-65 (Downloaded on 01/02/2020 at 08:49:51 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)