KANGABAM TARUNKUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR
LAWS(MANIP)-2019-2-2
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on February 04,2019

Kangabam Tarunkumar Singh Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MANIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Obin Singh - (1.) Heard Shri Serto T. Kom, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri A. Bimol, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 assisted by Shri Sashi, learned advocate and Shri Vashum, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to release/ pay all amounts already sanctioned by the respondent No. 3 within a specified time.
(2.) Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is the proprietor of a firm called "M/s Manipur Medical Equipment Traders, Imphal" having its head office at Kangabam Leikai, Imphal and is registered under the Manipur Value Added Tax Rule, 2005 and the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. 2.1. As the petitioner was selected from amongst the various bidders to supply of Multi Parameter Patient Monitors Model No. A3 Aspen (NIBP, SPO2, ECG and ETCO2) which is a higher version of the Bedside Monitors vide Resolution No.5 of the Purchase Advisory Board, JNIMS (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") in its meeting held on 04.12.2013 and also being satisfied with the firm's supply of products in time with quality, the petitioner's firm was informed to submit/ quote the price of the Bedside Monitors of Aspen Company [NIBP, SPO2 and ECG] for supplying the same to JNIMS. The petitioner's firm quoted the price of the said Bedside Monitors at the rate of Rs.2,49,500/- (Rupees two lakhs forty nine thousand five hundred) per set exclusive of taxes for the supply of 40 in number. A meeting of the Board, JNIMS along with the Director, JNIMS and other members/ special invitees, was held on 24.04.2014 and by the resolution of agenda No. 1 of the said meeting, the Board resolved to purchase 40 (forty) numbers of Bedside Monitors @ Rs.2,49,500/- (Rupees two lakhs forty nine thousand five hundred) from the petitioner's firm which is higher version of the bedside monitors vide Resolution No. 5 of the Board's Meeting held on 04.12.2013. 2.3. The respondent No.2 in his capacity as the Director, JNIMS issued supply order dated 09.06.2014, along with the terms and conditions, in favour of the petitioner's firm and the amount indicated in respect of 20 Bedside Monitors was Rs.56,63,560/-. Similarly, the respondent No.2 issued another supply order dated nil July 2014 in favour of the petitioner's firm for the supply of additional 20 Bedside Monitors for which total amount was Rs.56,63,560/-. In execution of the said supply orders, the petitioner's firm supplied 20 Bedside Monitors to the JNIMS on 28.6.2014 and 1.7.2014 which were checked and received by the officials of JNIMS on 7.8.2014. After the said 40 (forty) Bedside Monitors having been delivered, the petitioner with the help of experts and technicians imparted training to the Nurses, Doctors and other related staffs of the JNIMS for proper and effective operation of the said Bedside Monitors. Since the respondents were fully satisfied with the supplied goods, there was no any complaint or report of malfunction of the said supplied Bedside Monitors and accordingly, the respondent No.3 issued 5 sanction orders in respect of 20 numbers of supplied Bedside Monitors amounting to Rs. 56,63,650/-. Although the respondent No.3 had already sanctioned a total amount of Rs. 56,63,650/- in the month of July and August, 2014, he without any valid reason, refused to release the same amount which prompted the petitioner to issue a demand notice dated 20.11.2014 requesting the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for making payment but no payment was made to the petitioner's firm. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on the inter-alia grounds that the acts of the respondents are arbitrary and illegal, because of which the petitioner's firm had suffered financial loss.
(3.) On 17.04.2015 when the writ petition was listed before this Court for motion, the notice was issued to the respondents but despite several opportunities being granted to the respondents thereafter, no counter was filed and on 29.02.2016, 3(three) weeks' time as last opportunity was granted to the respondents, in the interest of justice, for filing counter subject to payment of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) as costs to be paid to the petitioner. While the writ petition was pending, the respondents issued an order cancelling the said sanction orders. Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application being MC(W.P (C)) No.88 of 2016 and after the same being allowed, the petitioner was directed to file a recast petition which was duly filed as directed by this Court. On 13.7.2016 when the last opportunity was granted for filing counter in the recast petition, it was filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.