Prashant Kumar,J. - (1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.04.2011( Annexure-9) passed by respondent no.2, whereby and where under, the claim of the petitioner rejected on the ground that during the contract period, the Jharkhand Tourist Development Corporation Ltd. suffered losses due to the negligence of the petitioner and/or his security personnel, thus petitioner is liable to compensate the Corporation. Petitioner further pray for a direction to the respondents to release the admitted dues in favour of the of the petitioner.
(2.) It appears that petitioner is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of Industrial Security and Detective Agency. Respondent no.3, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited, entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 02.06. 2008 for providing security services to its Head Office at Ranchi and various other places vide Annexure-1. In the said agreement, it was stipulated that petitioner will submit bill at the rate of Rs. 2891/- per month for each security guard on 5th of every month and respondent no.3 will make payment of the said bill by 10th of every month. It is also stipulated that if the rate of minimum wages will increase in future then the petitioner will submit the bill on the increased rate and respondent no.3 will make payment accordingly. It appears that petitioner submitted different bills total amounting to Rs. 6,20,869.98, details of which given at paragraph no. 18 of the writ application. But the same has not been paid by the respondents, even after the repeated request made by the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner filed a writ application in this Court vide W.P. (C) No. 1392 of 2011, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2011 ( Annexure-7) and the respondent no.2 was directed to treat the writ application as a representation and decide the claim made by the petitioner within 16 weeks from the date of receipt of the order, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and if the claim is decided in favour of the petitioner, then the concerned respondents are directed to make payment within a period of two weeks thereafter.
(3.) It appears that in view of the aforesaid order, respondent no.2 had fixed the case on 29.04.2011 for hearing and on that day, respondent no.2 after hearing the parties passed order as contained in Annexure-9, whereby respondent no.2 concluded that petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 5,80,354.36, but the respondent no.2 refused to direct the Corporation for making payment, because during the contract period the Jharkhand Tourist Development Corporation had sustained loss of Rs. 6,61,899.53 due to theft and damage of its properties, caused due to negligence of petitioner and/or its employee. Therefore, the amount claimed by the petitioner is adjusted towards the said damages.;