Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 19th September, 2017 rendered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 151 of 2015, Respondent-Jharkhand Education Project Council and the Government of Jharkhand are in appeal before us. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has directed the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 appellants herein to arrange payment of the admitted outstanding dues of Rs. 11,61,70,081/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date it became due, within three months from the date of receipt or production of the order.
(2.) Writ petitioner had approached the First Court for quashing of the order dated 5th June, 2014, by which the respondents refused to release their outstanding dues in terms of the agreement dated 25th September, 2012 towards printing and supply of text books for Class-VIII for academic session 2013-14. Learned Court held that the writ petitioner was entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of contractual obligation. As such, it held as under: - "53. As stated above it is evident from the work order and agreement dated 25.09.2012(Annexure-21) that there is no clause or stipulation that the consideration amount of the contract would be paid subject to condition or approval for release of the fund by the Central Government. The contract has to be interpreted in terms of the words and expression used therein. To reiterate, it is emphasized that agreement was a lawful agreement and the respondents were bound to fulfill the terms and conditions of the agreement/contract. 54. In this context it would be relevant to refer to the observation of Supreme Court in the case of Biman Krishna Bose vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2001 6 SCC 477 wherein in placitum 'b' of para 3 it has been observed "...........even in an area of contractual relation, the State and its instrumentality enjoined with the obligation to act with fairness and in doing so they can take into consideration only relevant materials. They must not take any irrelevant consideration while arriving at a decision. The arbitrariness should not appear in their action or decision.........." It is evident that the order dated 05.06.2014 is in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which includes not only what right is infringed but it also extends to the arbitrariness and unreasonable of an action or act done by the authority, i.e., the State. 55. In terms of the agreement contractual and constitutional obligation is cast on the respondents to abide by the terms of agreement. In this connection the decision in the case of M/s. Setu Printers(Supra) as relied on by the petitioner is applicable. In the said decision reference and reliance has been placed on the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., 2004 3 SCC 553 is as follows "............ that in an appropriate case writ petition arising out of contractual obligation is maintainable and merely because some disputed facts arise the same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. That the writ petition involving consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable and there is no dispute with respect to the above principle." 56. From the facts delineated hereinabove, it is not disputed that the agreement(Annexure-21) was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.2. The contract value was Rs.16,62,79,595/- and he was paid an advance of Rs.4,88,86,200/-. It is evidenced from the facts elucidated in the foregoing paragraphs that due to financial impropriety committed by the State officials, the Central Government had directed the State Government to enquire into the matter, then fix the responsibility on the guilty person. The violation of the rule or procedure was with respect to the tender process committed by the officials. The allegations were not with respect to the contract for printing and supply of the text books by the petitioner rather it was against the stockiest and manufacturer of paper. 57. The petitioner has supplied the books in terms of the agreement and despite repeated representations the respondents have denied payment by taking refuge of letter dated 18.10.2013 of MHED, GOI. The dispute with respect to release of fund for the financial impropriety is between the respondent/State and the Central Government. In such circumstance, the petitioner cannot be denied the payment of Rs.11,61,70,081/- on account of fault of the officials of respondent/State as this would amount to penalising the petitioner for no fault of his, especially when he has completed the work order in terms of the agreement and supplied the text books under the lawful agreement. 58. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the facts are in dispute is not acceptable particularly when they have not controverted that the outstanding amount in terms of the contract is to be paid to the petitioner. The excuse that they cannot pay due to the freezing of the SSA funds/SSA Account is patently fallacious because the MHRD, GOI has not found any fault or lacuna with respect to the validity of the agreement. MHRD has advised the respondents to arrange for payment of the amount to the printers from State's own resources and not from the SSA fund. 59. In view of the undisputed facts the contention of the respondent/State that the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 for enforcement of contractual obligation is misconceived and not tenable, consequently the letter dated 05.06.2014(Annexure-14) containing the conditional payment is quashed and respondent nos.1,2 and 3 are directed to arrange payment of the admitted outstanding dues of Rs.11,61,70,081/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date it became due, within three months from the date of receipt/production of this order. 60. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed."
(3.) Before us appellant-Jharkhand Education Project Council (for short 'J.E.P.C') has urged the following grounds: JEPC is an implementing agency of "Sarva Siksha Abhiyan" Scheme ( for short 'S.S.A.') jointly run by the Government of India and the State of Jharkhand, with their proportionate share of funding in the ratio of 60:40 in the Financial Year 2013-2014. Since the Government of India, MHRD received complain relating to the very tender process, allotment of work and supply of books as suffering from financial impropriety, it directed the JEPC not to make payments from the SSA funds by letter dated 18th October 2013. Since JEPC was prohibited from making payment, the writ petitioner had approached the learned First Court in W.P.(C) No. 877 of 2014. This writ petition was disposed of by order dated 31st October, 2014 directing the JEPC to decide upon the representation of the writ petitioner by passing a reasoned order. In consequence of the direction of the Writ Court, the impugned order dated 5th June, 2014 was passed by JEPC holding that payment cannot be made to the contractor till the prohibition was lifted and corresponding funds were released. In the present writ petition, the writ petitioner has not challenged the order dated 18th October, 2013 of Government of India but has assailed only the consequential order dated 5th June, 2014. Relying upon the ratio in the case of Edukanti Kistamma Vs. S. Venkatareddy, 2010 1 SCC 756, para-22, it has been urged that the writ petition was not maintainable on that score. During course of argument, it has been pointed out by the appellant that the writ court by an interim order dated 11th February, 2015 had allowed liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application seeking amendment in the writ petition, after the copy of order dated 18th October, 2013 was made available to it, which the writ petitioner did not choose to challenge. As such, the writ petitioner had no locus to question the consequential order passed by JEPC repudiating the money claim.;