Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner seeks payment of outstanding amount of Rs.1,39,44,810/- on account of supply of levy rice.
(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was asked to supply levy rice. The petitioner is engaged in supplying levy rice. It has been supplying levy rice for a considerable period of time without any complain from any quarter. In the present case also the petitioner supplied levy rice to the identified godown. The Godown-in-Charge issued necessary documents accepting the supply as proper. There is no complain with regard to the quality and quantity of the supply effected. The petitioner raised its bill upon the authorities. Subsequently, the authorities on a specious plea that, the supply effected by the petitioner is unfit for human consumption, sought to stop payment of the bill amount. He submits that, the supplies which the authorities are referring to in the correspondence relates to another godown. The petitioner did not supply the materials to such godown. It is the supply of another entity. The supplies of the petitioner are not at fault. The authorities proceeded against one of its official, in respect of the other supplies. No reason has been ascribed as to why such official was proceeded against. No reason has been given to the petitioner as to why the bills of the petitioner have not been released. He relies upon (Smt. Gunwant Kaur & Ors. Vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, 1970 AIR(SC) 802) in support of the contention that, the High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, merely because in considering the petition questions of fact may fall to be determined. The High Court has jurisdiction to try the issues so both of fact and law.
(3.) The respondents are represented.;