Tripura High Court
Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Tripura on 3 May, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.318 of 2024
Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
E-5, Jungi House, Street No.5, Near BSES Power Station, Shahpur Jat, New
Delhi-110049 through its authorized representative Ashwani Kumar (GM-
Skills and International), son of Satyapal Singh, aged 38 years, resident of
Flat No.8168, 2nd Floor, Pocket 8, Sector-D, Vasant Kunj, South West,
Delhi.
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura
Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development,
Civil Secretariat, Agartala.
2. Tripura Rural Livelihood Mission Society,
Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Government of Tripura,
2nd Floor, 4th Block, New Secretariat Building, Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
Agartala through its Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
3. State Bank of India,
Trade Finance CPC, C Block, 7th Floor, 11 Parliament Street, New Delhi.
....Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, Advocate Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate For respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, G.A Mrs. Riya Chakraborty, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 03/05/2024 Heard Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, learned counsel along with Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company. Also heard Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, learned G.A assisted by Mrs. Riya Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Company challenging the impugned action of forfeiting bank guarantee vide Bank Guarantee Revocation Notice dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition).
3. The short fact is that the petitioner-Company had entered into a MOU to provide security services to the respondents by way of recruiting Page 2 of 3 personnel from the rural areas. The monetary transactions was made under Project Fund Management Scheme which means that all the project funds should flow into and flow from a single dedicated designated bank account referred as the project account. Outflow of funds from the project account to the essentiality with respect to authorized heads of expenditure as per DDU- GKY guidelines.
4. It has been alleged by the respondents that the petitioner-Company had diverted fund to his corporate account from the said Project fund account, and thus, defalcated/misappropriated the Government money for their wrongful gain. The respondents by the impugned action had passed an order to refund the said defalcated amount of Rs.1,61,42,758/- along with interest within a period of 7 days from the date of serving of the order dated 23.04.2024 failing which the Bank Guarantee would be forfeited.
5. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is specific guideline for imposing penalty and under such guideline the respondent cannot forfeit the Bank Guarantee as penalty.
6. Without entering into the merit of the case at this stage, I have noticed an alternative remedy for challenging the impugned action of the respondents by way of preferring of appeal to the appellate authority as embodied in Section 1.6.1 of the Project Guideline. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company has submitted that the petitioner- Company has not preferred any appeal in terms of Section 1.6.1 of the Project Guideline.
7. In view of this, I direct the petitioner-Company to file appeal before the appellate authority within a period of 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy or the downloaded copy from the website of the High Court. Thereafter, the appellant authority is directed to dispose of the appeal within next 30 days as stipulated under Section 1.6.1 of the Project Guideline. The petitioner is given liberty to agitate all the points raised in the present petition before the appellate authority for forfeiting the Bank Guarantee under order. Further, till the filing of the appeal, the impugned direction dated 23.04.2024 shall remain suspended.
Page 3 of 38. The respondents may proceed against the petitioner-Company in accordance with the order dated 23.04.2024 if no appeal is preferred by the petitioner-Company in terms of the aforesaid directions qua the impugned action of the respondents under order dated 23.04.2024 is not stayed and/or set aside by the appellate authority.
9. The instant writ petition stands disposed in the above terms.
JUDGE
Rohit
SAIKAT Digitally signed
by SAIKAT KAR
KAR Date: 2024.05.04
18:09:35 +05'30'