RAJESH SHANKAR,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to immediately and forthwith provide road permit to the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax, 2005 (in short Act, 2005) for delivery of transporter and dealer's challan of remaining 32,00,000 (Thirty two lacs) having value of Rs. 44,48,000/- pursuant to the Purchase Order dated 24.04.2012. It has further been prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 44,48,000/- being the value of remaining 32 lacs transporter and dealers' challan manufactured by the petitioner pursuant to the Purchase Order dated 24.04.2012.
(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the State of Jharkhand issued Purchase order to the petitioner as contained in letter No. 768 dated 24.04.2012 for printing and supply 80 lacs Statutory Form-D transport challan and 20 lacs dealers challan. The petitioner was to supply part of the consignment in the month of May 2012 and the remaining in the month of July 2012. The petitioner by its letter dated 16.11.2012 reminded the respondents that the entire consignment is ready for dispatch since May 2012 and further requested for providing the road permit so that the consignment can be delivered to them as in terms with the provisions of the Act, 2005 particularly Section 72, no movement of goods can take place in the State of Jharkhand except without valid road permit and it is the duty of the purchaser of goods to furnish the road permit to the seller of goods to enable the seller to transport the goods and get the same delivered in the State of Jharkhand. According to the petitioner, in spite of its repeated requests, the respondents did not provide the road permit citing the reason that they did not have appropriate storage for the consignment and as such, the delivery date was extended. The respondents issued first road permit on 23.02.2013 and as such, the petitioner effected delivery of 68 lacs transport challan having value of Rs. 94,52,000/-. However, no road permit was issued for the remaining part of consignment of 32 lacs having value of Rs.44,48,000/-. The respondent made payment towards the invoice nos. 186 and 187 amounting to Rs.47,26,000/- on 09.05.2013 however payment for the invoice no. 201 and 202 was not released. The respondents issued letter dated 25.04.2013 to the petitioner annexing a letter dated 01.04.2013 issued by the Treasury Officer, Doranda alleging that the invoices bearing nos. 201 and 202 are forged one as the original and duplicate invoices have been signed by two different persons. The petitioner replied the letter dated 25.04.2013 stating that both the original and duplicate invoices have been signed by the authorized officers of the petitioner. Again by letter dated 29.11.2013, the respondents informed the petitioner that the reply submitted by it did not contain any justification of the allegation and subsequently petitioner submitted an affidavit on 02.02.2013 stating that the invoice no. 202 is authentic. Thereafter, the petitioner repeatedly requested for issuance of road permit for remaining consignment but the same was not issued which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in spite of repeated requests of the petitioner, the respondents did not provide the road permit for the remaining consignment and as such the respondents failed for fulfil their obligations under the third purchase order. However, the petitioner has successfully completed two earlier orders dated 01.02.2011 and 30.12.2011 and payment has already been made to it. It is further submitted that the printed challans contain barcoding, holograms, and symbols with Invisible ink for the security reasons and, therefore, th'1 same cannot be sold to any third party and as/such the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss in case the consignment is not accepted. It is further submitted that in accordance with the terms of the third purchase order, the petitioner has taken utmost care in preserving and maintaining these consignments and has merely acted in terms of the contract and now the petitioner is not in a financial position to maintain these goods at its storage facility to ensure that these goods are not misused. It is also submitted that in terms of the purchase order dated 24.04.2012, the petitioner printed one crore challans, hence the respondents are bound by the contractual terms between the parties and are under obligation to take the delivery of remaining 32 lakh challans and discharge the consideration towards the same. It is further submitted that the entire consignment was manufactured in May, 2012 itself and the remaining challans are being maintained in the godown of the petitioner even today. It is further submitted that Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872 provides that when a person has acted under a valid contract for another, the latter is liable to compensate the former.;