Patna High Court
The Nagar Panchayat Nirmali Through Its … vs Baba Debraha Enterprises A … on 22 July, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.159 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17496 of 2023
======================================================
1. The Nagar Panchayat Nirmali through its Executive Officer, District -
Supaul.
2. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Nirmali, District- Supaul, namely
Shashi Kant, aged about 40 years, Male, Son of Surendra Prasad Singh.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Baba Debraha Enterprises a proprietorship Firm through its proprietor
namely Rakesh Ranjan. Having its registered office at Khesra No. 2469,
1629, Gandhi Nagar, Rajeev Nagar, Patna and its corporate office at flat no.
704, Raut City, Apartment, Near Rudra Marriage Hall, Saguna Khagaul
Road, Police Station Danapur, District - Patna through its authorized
signatory namely Nimikesh Kumar Nirla (Male), Son of Nageshwar Prasad
Jayswal, resident of 208, opposite Metagally, Post Office - Lok Nayaka
Nagar, Hebbal, Mysore, Police Station - Metagally, District- Mysore,
Karnataka.
2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Industries,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Barun Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Res. No.1 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Prabhashankar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Navneet Dubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Additional Advocate General-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 22-07-2025
The present appeal has been filed under Clause-X,
Appendix-E of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court Rules by
the appellants who are original respondent nos.4 and 5 in the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2025 dt.22-07-2025
2/11
writ petition. The appellants are aggrieved by the direction
issued by the learned Single Judge to make payment of
Rs.28,45,790/- to the original petitioner.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:
2.1 The present opponent no.1 is the original writ
petitioner which had preferred the petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India before the learned Single Judge in
which the writ petitioner prayed that the writ of mandamus be
issued commanding the respondents to make the payment in lieu
of supply done pursuant to the work order dated 05.05.2022 to
the tune of Rs.43,60,498/- along with interest @ 18% and other
expenses incurred upon maintaining the materials at the site
including refund of security deposit and refund of illegally
deducted amount.
2.2 It is the case of the writ petitioner that the
respondent no.5, i.e., the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat of
a particular district floated expression of interest in the Gem
Portal. The petitioner participated in the same and thereafter the
respondent awarded the work order dated 05.05.2022. It is the
case of the petitioner that, as per the said work order, the
petitioner had to supply 48 pieces of Wheel Barrows and 6
pieces of Hooper Tippers. It is further the case of the petitioner
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2025 dt.22-07-2025
3/11
that the work order was generated on 05.05.2022 and on the
basis of the said work order, the petitioner had purchased 6
pieces of Hooper Tippers and the other materials. Thereafter the
concerned respondents have initially accepted 4 pieces of
Hooper Tippers and 48 pieces of Wheel Barrows and an
assurance was given to purchase the balance 2 Hooper Tippers.
However, the respondents did not fulfil the said promise. In fact,
as per the terms and conditions of the work order, the petitioner
purchased all the 6 Hooper Tippers and also got registered all
the 6 vehicles in the name of the Executive Officer, Nagar
Panchayat, respondent no.5.
2.3 It is the further case of the petitioner that
thereafter the petitioner made several representations before the
respondent authorities and requested them to take the delivery
of the remaining 2 vehicles and make the payment as per the
work order, despite which no response was given by the
respondent authorities. The petitioner, therefore, preferred the
captioned writ petition before the learned Single Judge.
2.4 The learned Single Judge partly allowed the
petition whereby the direction has been issued to the present
appellants/original respondents to pay an amount of
Rs.28,45,790/- incurred by the petitioner for purchase of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2025 dt.22-07-2025
4/11
vehicles as per the terms and conditions of the bid documents.
So far as the other prayers of the petitioner are concerned, the
learned Single Judge did not grant such prayers.
2.5 The original respondent nos.4 and 5, aggrieved
by the aforesaid direction issued by the learned Single Judge,
has preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, learned counsel
for the appellants and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, the learned counsel
for the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the present appellants
would mainly contend that there are disputed questions of fact
and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have
entertained the petition by giving a direction to the present
appellants to pay the amount as stipulated in the impugned
order. The learned counsel at this stage has referred to the
averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent nos. 4 and 5, more particularly paragraphs 8 and 9.
After referring to the said averments, the learned counsel
submits that the work order was generated on 05.05.2022 but as
per the stock register, the supply was already made on
04.05.2022
even before the work order was generated. It has
further been contended that only 4 pieces of Hooper Tippers
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2025 dt.22-07-2025
5/11
were supplied because there was no approval of 6 Hooper
Tippers. The learned counsel further submits that, as per the
letter dated 29.06.2019 issued by the Urban Development
Department, Govt. of Bihar, only one Tipper was to be used for
every 10,000 people and as per the census, 2011, the population
of the concerned Nagar Panchayat was 20,189, whereas, as per
the caste survey of 2023, total population in the concerned
Panchayat was 27, 354. Thus, as per the standard fixed by the
concerned department, considering the population of less than
30,000 people, maximum purchase of Hooper Tippers
permissible was only 3, despite which 4 Tippers were
purchased. It is, therefore, contended that there is no need to
purchase 2 more Tippers pursuant to the aforesaid policy of the
concerned department of the State Government. The learned
counsel, therefore, urged that the present appellants have not
committed any illegality by refusing to take the delivery of
remaining two vehicles though the bid was issued for purchase
of 6 vehicles. It is also contended that, till date, the remaining
two vehicles have not been supplied and, therefore, the learned
Single Judge has committed an error while giving direction to
the appellants herein to pay the amount of Rs. 28,45,790/-.
Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned order
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2025 dt.22-07-2025
6/11
passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the present opponent/original petitioner has vehemently opposed
the present appeal. Learned counsel referred the observation
made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
Learned counsel further referred the documents which are
annexed with the memo of petition. He would mainly contend
that bid was invited for supply of 6 Hooper Tippers. Learned
counsel referred page -27, Annexure -2 of the compilation. It is
contended that it has specifically been stated in the bid itself that
the expenditure involved for this purpose has received the
sanction of the competent financial authority and the funds are
available under the proper head in the sanction budget allotment
for the concerned financial year. It is further contended that
initially on 06.05.2022 as per the work order, 4 Hooper Tippers
were supplied to the concerned respondent for which the
payment has been received by the petitioner. It is also pointed
out from the record that, in fact, the petitioner, who is the
supplier, has purchased the vehicles from the concerned
manufacturer. The remaining 2 vehicles were also purchased by
the petitioner/supplier. The petitioner has shown willingness to
supply 2 remaining vehicles to the respondents, however, the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2025 dt.22-07-2025
7/11
respondents did not take the delivery though requested time and
again by several representations. Learned counsel has referred
the representations made by the petitioner, copies of which are
annexed with the memo of petition.
6. Learned counsel for the present opponent/original
petitioner has contended before us that, in fact, the petitioner is
ready and willing to supply 2 remaining Hooper Tippers to the
concerned respondent authority within a period of one week
from today. However, so far as maintenance of the aforesaid
vehicles are concerned for a period of one year, as per the
original terms and conditions of the tender, it has been
contended that the petitioner was required to maintain the
vehicles for a period of one year from the date of purchase and,
in fact, the purchase was made in the year 2022, hence, the
petitioner was not liable to maintain the vehicles after giving
the delivery of the same to the concerned respondent.
7. We have considered the submissions canvassed by
the learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also
perused the materials placed on record. We have also gone
through the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge
while passing the impugned order. It transpires from the record
that respondent nos. 4 and 5 issued the tender bid document
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2025 dt.22-07-2025
8/11
which is placed on record at page 22. As per the said bid
document, the petitioner participated in the said process. The
petitioner was selected and, as per the work order, he was
required to supply 6 Hooper Tippers by 15 th May 2022.
Annexure -2, page -27 is the contract dated 05.05.2022. It is not
in dispute that, as per the said contract, clause 1.10.1 provides
that the expenditure involved for the purpose has received the
sanction of the competent financial authority. It has further been
observed in clause 1.10.2 that the funds are available under the
proper head in the sanction budget allotment for the concerned
financial year. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the said
contract, the petitioner had given delivery of 4 Hooper Tippers
to the concerned respondent on 06.05.2022. Tax invoices are
placed on record at page -30 of the compilation. It is also not in
dispute that the payment qua the said 4 vehicles has been made
to the respondent/original petitioner. Thus, in the present matter,
the dispute is with regard to the remaining 2 Hooper Tippers, the
vehicles which are already purchased by the petitioner as a
supplier from the concerned manufacturer on the basis of the bid
document, and as per the contract awarded to the petitioner, the
work order which has been given to the petitioner. It is specific
case of the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2025 dt.22-07-2025
9/11
remaining 2 vehicles also and both the vehicles have been
immediately registered in the name of the Executive Officer of
the concerned Panchayat. We have gone through the counter
affidavit filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5. Surprisingly, it is for
the first time, the case of the respondent before this Court that,
as per the letter dated 29.06.2019 of the Urban Development
Department of the State Govt., one Tipper was to be used for
population of every 10,000. The population of the concerned
Panchayat is less than 30,000. Therefore, only 3 vehicles were
required. We are of the view that the aforesaid contention is
nothing but an afterthought. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 were
aware of the aforesaid letter which was issued long back in the
year 2019, despite which the bid was issued in the year 2022 for
purchase of 6 vehicles. Even work order has been issued in
favour of the petitioner and, in fact, 4 vehicles have been
purchased by the appellants from the respondent/original
petitioner.
8. At this stage, we would like to observe that the
learned Single Judge has partly allowed the petition and the
other reliefs prayed by the petitioner have not been granted in
favour of the petitioner. Thus, the dispute is with regard to the
payment of Rs. 28,45,790/- incurred by the petitioner for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2025 dt.22-07-2025
10/11
purchase of the 2 Hooper Tippers from the concerned
manufacturer. We are of the view that once the petitioner has
purchased the vehicles pursuant to the bid issued by the
respondent and as per the work order, the respondent was
required to take the delivery of the said vehicles as per the terms
and conditions of the bid document. There was no fault on the
part of the petitioner and because of the fact that the respondent
did not take the delivery of remaining 2 vehicles from the
petitioner, the petitioner has suffered a loss.
9. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned
Single Judge has not committed any error while issuing
direction to the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 28,45,790/-
incurred by the petitioner for the purchase of the vehicles in
question. However, at the same time, at this stage, we record
that the learned counsel appearing for the present opponent/
original petitioner has, under the instruction, submitted that the
delivery of the remaining 2 vehicles in question would be given
to respondent nos. 4 and 5 as per the bid document/work order
within a period of one week. It is needless to observe that the
original petitioner shall maintain the vehicles in question for a
period of one year from the date of supply as per the original
terms and conditions of the bid document.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2025 dt.22-07-2025
11/11
10. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is partly
allowed to the aforesaid extent.
11. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Sanjay/Sunil
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 24.07.2025
Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link