IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12998 of 2003 1. M/s Maa Durga Enterprises, Sri Krishna Nagar, Chakaram Mod, Patna, through its Proprietor Anand Kumar Yadav, son of Ramasis Roy, resident of Mohalla S.K. Nagar, Chakaram Mod, Patna. 2. Bharat Printing Works off set Printers L/64 Sri Krishna Nagar, Chakaram Mod, through its Proprietor Arun Kumar Sinha, son of Late Rekhishwari Pd. Sinha, resident of Mohalla S.K. Nagar, Patna. ..... Petitioners. Versus 1. Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Ltd. through its M.D., Indra Bhawan, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna. 2. Managing Director, Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna. 3. Bihar School Examination Board (Higher Secondary), Patna. 4. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Higher Secondary), Patna. .... Respondents. ----------- 14- 7.10.2009 Heard Mr. K.D. Chatterjee for the petitioners, Mr. Uma Kant Singh for respondent nos.1 and 2, and Mr. Prashant Kumar Shahi for respondent nos.3 and 4. This writ petition has been preferred for a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of a sum of Rs.36,49,605/- to the petitioners along with interest for supply of stationary items. Respondent nos.1 and 2, and respondent nos.3 and 4, have placed on record their separate sets of counter affidavits. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ 2 petition may be indicated. The two petitioners are engaged in the business of printing and supply of stationary materials. The original respondent no.3 was the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, a statutory body. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the same has been abolished, the duties and functions have been assigned to the Bihar School Examination Board (Higher Secondary), Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’), and has been substituted. In other words, the latter has stepped into the shoes of original respondent no.3. Respondent no.1 is a public- sector undertaking of the Bihar Government and is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’). The Corporation did not measure up to the expectations of its duties and functions and, therefore, for the sake of survival, decided to procure and supply the requirements of different Government bodies in the State of Bihar by procuring materials from the different suppliers. 3. On the Board’s indent, the Corporation placed orders for supply of stationary materials with the petitioners from time to time. Sample copies of some of the 3 orders are marked Annexure-1 series to the writ petition. The petitioners were required to pay a sum equivalent to 5% of the value of the goods to the Corporation by way of service charges. On the strength of the orders so received from the Corporation, the petitioners supplied stationary materials to the Board valued at Rs.41,38.500/-. The Board sanctioned payment of ad hoc payment of rupees five lacs to the petitioners through the Corporation and, after tax deducted at source, the petitioners received a sum of Rs.4,89,000/- through the Corporation. In other words, a sum of Rs. 36,49,605/- is still due to the petitioners. Hence this writ petition. 4. The Corporation has wholly admitted the petitioners’ case, and has stated that the Corporation has not been able to make payment of the said sum of Rs.36,49.605/- on account of non-receipt of funds from the Board. On the other hand, the Board in its counter affidavit has taken the plea that the Corporation has placed orders with the petitioners without inviting tenders. Learned counsel for the Board has further submitted during the course of submissions that the writ 4 petition is normally not maintainable for money claims. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears from a perusal of the Corporation’s counter affidavit that the petitioners had supplied the goods to the Board on the orders placed by the Corporation. The Corporation has further admitted that the petitioners had supplied the stationary materials valued at Rs.41,38,605/-, and they received a sum of Rs.4,89,000/- after tax deducted at source towards part payment of its dues. In other words, the admitted position is that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (before taxes) has been paid to the petitioners, and the balance sum of Rs.36,49,605/- is admittedly due to the petitioners and has not so far been paid because of paucity of funds. 6. As to the Board’s stand, they have first of all taken the stand that the writ petition for money claim is normally not maintainable. The proposition of law is well- known and admits of certain exceptions. A writ petition for such a cause would normally not be maintainable if it is based on disputed 5 questions of facts and/or issues of facts which cannot be resolved by affidavit evidence. Law is equally well-settled that a writ petition would surely be maintainable if the dues are admitted and equally the Court is entitled to examine whether or not denial of the claim on the part of the debtor is mere pretence to deny the petitioners’ money claim. We have noticed hereinabove the stand taken by the Corporation, according to which the supply of goods is admitted, and the dues are also admitted. 7. The Board’s second contention is that the Corporation placed orders with the petitioners without calling for tenders. In the totality of the circumstances it appears to us that this is an after-thought and is a mere pretence to defeat the petitioners’ lawful claims. The position is manifest on a perusal of the entire order-sheet reproduced from the file maintained by the Board in the routine course of business in this connection, a perusal of which shows that the dues are clearly admitted. In other words, the statements made in the Board’s counter affidavit are clearly contradicted by the contemporaneous materials in the Board’s 6 office. We really regret that a statutory body like the Board has resorted to falsehood to deny the lawful claims of the petitioners. The following extracts from the files of the Board’s original record of 6.5.2003 and 17.5.2003, are reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: lfpo o"kZ 2001 es LVs’kujh vkiwfrZ dh tkWap lcUa/kh varfje izfrosnu i=k0 i`0&01 ij layXu gS@ Stock register verification report vHkh rd izkIr ugh gqvk gS@ vUrfje izfrosnu ls Li"V gS fd Bihar Small Scale Industries dks tks vkns’k fuxZr gS, mlds vk/kkj ij izfrosnu esa vafdr 3 items NksM+dj ’ks"k lHkh dh entry stock register esa gS rFkk HkaMkj n~okjk pkyku ij izfIr gLrk{kj Hkh gS@ dz; vkns’k fuxZr gS rFkk dz; vkns” ds vuqlkj lkexzh dh vkiwfrZ Hkh ifj"kn HkaMkj esa izkIr fd;k x;k gS@ ,slh fLFkfr esa vkiwfrZdrkZ dks Hkqxrku dh nkosnkjh curh gS@ rn~uqlkj bu fcUnqvksa ij v/;{k egksn; ls foe’kZ dj leqfpr fu.kZ; ysuk pkgsaxs@ g0/& vLi"V 6&5&03 iz’k[kk ink0 v/;{k egksn; dk vkns’k fVIi.kh i`0 ds vxz Hkkx dk voyksdu djuk pkgsaxs@ layXu lafpdk ij dqy jkf’k 41,38,605/- #0 esa ls Rrdky rnFkZ #i ls 5,00,000/- #0 dk Hkqxrku djus dk vkns’k izkIr gqvk gS@ vkns’kkuqlkj fcgkj 7 LVsV LeksSy bUMLVz~ht dkjiks0 fyfeVsM ds uke ls vk;dj dh jkf’k 2.2% dh dVkSrh djrs gq, 'ks"k jkf’k 4,89,000/- #0 dk ,d Hkkmpj ,oa vk;dj dh jkf’k 11,000/- #0 dk ,d Hkkmpj gLrk{kjkFkZ izLrqr @ mDr jkf’k nsgd ekWa nqxkZ bUVjizkbtst, ,l0 ds0 uxj, pdkje dks rnFkZ Hkqxrku gsrq Hkstk tk jgk gS@ gLrk{kjkFkZ g0/& vLi"V 17&5&03 l0 lfpo mij dk;kZy; dk fVIi.kh voyksdukFkZ rn~uqlkj rS;kj Hkmpj ij gLrk{kjkFkZ gsrq lafpdk miLFkfir g0/- lh0 uUnh 17&5&03 fo0 ink0 i`"V 4/fV0 ij v/;{k egksn; ds vkns’k ds vkyksd esa dqy jkf’k 5,00,000/- dks vyx&vyx nks Hkkmpj gLrk{kjkFkZ@ g0/& vLi"V 17&5&03 8. The aforesaid notes form part of the supplementary affidavit placed on record by the petitioners and no rejoinder to the same has been filed. In other words, the position is manifest that the petitioners did supply stationary materials valued at Rs.41,38,605/- to the Board through the instrumentality of the Corporation, as is proved by its contemporaneous documents, and the stand taken by the Board in the counter affidavit is false 8 and is a mere pretence to deny the claims of the petitioners. 9. In the result, we reach the conclusion that the petitioners did supply the stationary materials to the Board through the instrumentality of the Corporation valued at Rs.41,38,605/-, and had received a sum of Rs.4,89,000/- after tax deducted at source. In other words, Rs.36,49,605/- is due to the petitioners. Respondent nos.3 and 4 are hereby directed to release a sum of Rs.36,49,605/- to respondent no.2 to be passed on to the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 15% from the dates the amount(s) became due till the date of payment. Payment to the petitioners shall be accompanied with chart of calculation. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/