- (1.) The case of the petitioner is that the office of the Deputy Director, Ramganga Command Project, Mirzapur invited tenders on 24 July 2009 for the supply of 1100 cubic meters coarse sand during 2009-10 for the soil conservation unit at Kaushambi. The petitioner has averred that he submitted a tender which was accepted and an agreement was entered into on 16 September 2009 by which the petitioner was directed to supply 1179.56 cubic meters of coarse sand at an agreed rate of Rs. 950 per cubic meter. The petitioner claims to have supplied the full quantity of sand in pursuance of the supply orders issued by the Project Director dated 10 December 2009, 5 April 2010 and 15 April 2010. The petitioner has sought to rely upon copies of the supply orders and store receipts to substantiate his claim for payment of the bills which, according to the petitioner, were sanctioned on 26 April 2010 and 15 May 2010. Despite this, the grievance was that no payment was made to the petitioner. The petitioner made representations to the Chairman/Administrator, Ramganga Command Project, Kanpur on 24 April 2011 and 6 April 2011. Since payment was not made, a writ petition was filed seeking reimbursement of an amount of Rs. 11,20,582/- towards supply of 1179.56 cubic meters coarse sand.
(2.) When the petition came up before a Division Bench of this Court on 27 February 2014, the Court noticed that a counter-affidavit was filed by the Technical Officer in the office of the Deputy Director, Soil Conservation and Water Resources Department in November 2013. In the counter-affidavit, it was stated that payment was not made to the petitioner due to insufficiency of funds and that a letter was addressed to the State Government on 31 March 2013 for the release of funds. On 27 February 2014, a Division Bench of this Court taking note of the counter-affidavit, directed the second and third respondents to release the amount alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum within a period of ten days and submit a proof of payment. A similar direction was issued on 10 March 2014. The petition thereafter appeared for further hearing, inter alia, on 27 April and 28 April 2015. In the meantime, a supplementary counter-affidavit dated 25 March 2014 was filed by the Administrator, Ramganga Command Project.
(3.) In the supplementary counter-affidavit, it has been stated that on 11 March 2014, the Administrator, Ramganga Command Project addressed a communication to the Principal Secretary of the concerned department for compliance of the interim directions issued by the Division Bench. In response thereto, the Secretary, Government of U.P. addressed a communication dated 14 March 2014 to the Administrator, Ramganga Command Project. It has been stated that in the letter dated 14 March 2014 of the Secretary of the concerned department, certain facts have been set out. The counter filed by the Administrator states that these facts were not within his knowledge. Among other things, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that (i) by an order dated 19 March 2014, the Principal Secretary of the concerned department had issued suspension orders of Daya Shanker Gupta, the then Soil Conservation Officer; (ii) the disputed work for which the claim was made by the petitioner was got conducted by the Soil Conservation Officer without allocation of budget by creating an additional liability on the department; (iii) a departmental inquiry has been initiated; and (iv) by another communication dated 19 March 2014, the Principal Secretary of the concerned department referred the matter to the Principal Secretary in the Department of Home, Government of U.P., for having the entire matter investigated by the Economic Offences Wing. The deponent of the supplementary counter-affidavit has stated that since he had joined the post of Administrator on 5 March 2014, it was only upon receipt of the letter of the Secretary dated 14 March 2014 that the irregularities found to have been committed in the matter were brought to his notice. Hence, it has been submitted that the matter, prima facie, requires a thorough investigation and examination. Moreover, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit which was filed on behalf of the earlier Administrator that several relevant facts were not mentioned. In the present case, it has been stated that the Ramganga Command Project was being funded jointly by the Central and State Government and though there was a direction that no additional liability would be created, the work was got done by the official concerned by creating an additional liability in collusion with the petitioner. Finally, it has been stated that there is an arbitration agreement in the contract between the parties.;