TARUN KUMAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE admitted position of the case as it is gathered from materials lying in the records as well as from the submissions made by the learned counsels of the parties be summarised as follows: - On 25th of June, 2010 a tender notice was published by the Directorate of Shipping Services, Andaman and Nicobar Administration whereby quotation was called for from intending supplier for items mentioned in the said tender notice. The petitioner firm participated in the said tender process. The petitioner became successful bidder and a supply order dated October 20th 2010 was issued by the department concerned. The petitioner supplied the items as per terms of the tender which were duly received by the authorities. Said items were accepted by the authorities. The petitioner submitted bill on 25.01.2012 amounting to Rs.19,11,052/ -. In spite of repeated requests said bill was not cleared by the authorities. Hence this application praying for directing authorities to make payment to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum with other consequential reliefs.
(2.) IN the affidavit -in -opposition the respondents declined to release such payment on the following grounds: - A supply order vide M/PR -Electronic/Open -102/2010 -11/144 dated 01.09.2010 amounting to Rs.37,51,102/ - was issued to the petitioner firm for supply of electronic items. The firm supplied items and received payment accordingly. Later on authorities received complaint that the petitioner firm supplied those items at exorbitant rates. In order to verify the correctness of the complaint, the firm was requested to furnish documentary evidence in support of the rate quoted for those items. After much persuasion and after lapse of about six months the firm furnished the relevant particulars. To safeguards the interest of the government the bill of the present case amounting to Rs.19,11,052/ - of the petitioner was withheld in case any recoveries was required to be made from the firm. However, before examination of the reply furnished by the petitioner firm all documents were seized in June 2012 by the Anti Corruption Unit of the Andaman and Nicobar Police and the matter is under investigation by them. The writ application is not maintainable as the petitioner put for money claim which cannot be decided in a writ proceeding. The writ application is also not maintainable on the ground that there was an arbitration clause in the tender document. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. Mrs. Anjili Nag learned counsel appearing for the petitioner firm submits that the supply of materials worth Rs.19,11,052/ - by the petitioner firm to the respondent authorities in terms of tender in question was not disputed. She further submits that it was also not the case of the respondents authorities that the items were not upto the mark or that the rates clamed were higher than the rates approved by the authorities at the time of accepting the bid of the petitioner firm. She submits that allegation of supply of articles in alleged higher rated in the earlier occasion cannot be a ground for withholding the ayment in the present case. She next submits that when there is no dispute regarding factual aspects then inaction on the part of the state authorities for release of payment in connection with a contract can be the subject matter of a writ application. In support of her contention she refers the case law of Abl International Ltd. & Anr -vs - Export Credit Guarantee in connection with Appeal (Civil) 5409 of 1998.
(3.) SHE next submits that the presence of arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties is no ground to deny remedy in the writ jurisdiction in appropriate case. In support of her contention she refers the case law reported in 2011 (4) Civil LJ 228 (Union of India and others -Vs - Tantia Construction Private Ltd.);