- (1.) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by Respondent No. 2-rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for payment of bills of Rs. 64,74,761/- against the work down by the Petitioner.
(2.) Mr. P.K. Prasad learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted as follows. Pursuant to the rate fixed by Respondent No. 3-Public Relation Department, of the State Government, work order was issued to the Petitioner by Respondent No. 2-the Food Supply Department. The Petitioner completed the work and submitted the bills on the basis of the said rates approved for similar work. Food Supply Department utilized the printed materials, but the Petitioner's bills are not being paid. The Petitioner has been given work by other department also on the said rates and is getting the payment of the bills against the worked done. The Deputy Secretary of the Finance Department was also one of the member in the purchase committee by which the rates of printing were fixed by the Public Relation Department, but now the bills are not being paid on the ground that the work order was issued by the Food Supply Department without following the rules/instructions contained in resolution No. 5703 dated 1.10.2002 of the Finance Department where under for any item above Rs. 50,000/-, tender should be issued in the newspaper. There is no dispute with regard to the amount of the bills. In view of Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872, as the Petitioner has lawfully done the work on the basis of the work order and the Food Supply Department having utilised the printed materials supplied by the Petitioner, it is bound to pay the bills. He lastly submitted that the supply was made by the Petitioner In the year 2010 at the rate fixed two year ago in the year 2008.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate General submitted as follows: Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872 is of no help to the Petitioner as according to the Respondents, Petitioner was not given the work lawfully. Petitioner took part in the tender issued by the Public Relation Department, and was issued work order. Then, on Petitioner's approach, work was given by the Food Supply Department on the rates on which Petitioner was given work in the tender Issued by the Public Relation Department. He referred to the letter dated 29.8.2008 sent by the Petitioner to the Food Supply Department (Annexure-2). Petitioner has been approaching and getting work from other departments also on the said rates fixed in the tender of Public Relation Department. In view of the said circular of the Finance Department, the Food Supply Department was required to issue tender as the work was for more than Rs. 50,000/-. Action ahs been taken against the concerned officers of the Food Supply Department for not following the said circulars of the Finance Department. The State Government, in any event is not bound by the acts done by its officers/employees. There is nothing to show that Public Relation Department, floated the tenders for fixing rates for all the departments. The requirements of different departments may be different from the requirement of the Public Relation Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that the work order was given lawfully and consequently the work done by the Petitioner is also unlawful. The Petitioner was a party to the violation of the government rules/instructions for his unjust enrichment. The remedy of the Petitioner is to file a civil suit for a decision whether it is entitled to the amount of bills/compensation in terms of Section 70 of the Contract Act.;