THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.28683 OF 2011 Dated: 21.12.2011 Between: M/s. National Traders ..... Petitioner AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and 3 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.28683 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the second work order payment for Rs.2,51,347.20 paise after receiving the material and acknowledging the same, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to release the said work order payment with interest at 18% per annum from the date of payment due till the date of release. 2. The petitioner is a Registered Trader for supply of goods to various institutions, including the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’). The Corporation has issued a notification dated 01.07.2009 for supply of Santoor Soaps as well as Coconut Oil. As the petitioner quoted the lowest price, its tender was accepted. Accordingly, the Corporation had sanctioned an amount of Rs.48,27,480/- for purchase of Coconut Oil and Santoor Soaps. The 2nd respondent had issued two work orders. The first work order had been issued vide work order No.68/AMOH8/GHMC/2009, dated 23.07.2009 for supply of 1,05,600 pieces (Net weight 92 gms per piece) of Santoor Soaps and 17,600 Lts @ 161.98 per Liter (per one liter 912 Gms Plastic Container) for an amount of Rs.46,08,032/-. As per the first work order, the petitioner supplied the Santoor Soaps and Coconut Oil for an amount of Rs.45,64,046/- within the prescribed time and bill amount had been paid. The second work order bearing No.SP1/AMOH8/GHMC/2009 dated 15.03.2010 issued for the remaining amount of Rs.2,63,433-76 paise out of which Rs.2,51,347- 20 paise was ordered for supply of Santoor Soaps 5760 pieces (Net weight 92 gms per piece @ 16.64/per piece) and Coconut Oil 960 Liters @ 161.98 per Liter (per oil Ltr 912 gms Plastic Container) to be supplied within a period of one week and the same was supplied. It is stated that though a certificate has been issued acknowledging the supply of goods by the officers concerned on 15.07.2011 and both the bills i.e., first supplied material for Rs.45,64,046/- and second supplied material for Rs.2,45,651/- were submitted within the same financial year, the 3rd respondent without giving any reasons rejected the bill amount stating that same cannot be admitted. In spite of clear explanation given by the authorities concerned, the 3rd respondent returned the bill with the same endorsement. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 26.03.2011 for the payment of bills to the Zonal Commissioner, who is the authority and who issued the work order and receiving the goods, but no reply has been given. In spite of issuing legal notice dated 18.08.2011, the respondent authorities have not taken any action for payment of the amount. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. While denying the maintainability of the writ petition, it is stated that the Apex Court time and again laid down the law that if there is any disputed question of fact relating to contractual liability, writ petition is not maintainable. While admitting the issuance of notification dated 01.07.2009 and according of the administrative sanction for an amount of Rs.48,27,480/- towards the supply of certain material, it is stated that the same does not mean that the sanctioned amount should entirely be spent within the financial year. It is stated that the contractor/supplier has supplied Santoor Soaps and Coconut Oil for an amount of Rs.45,64,046/- and the bill was paid. With the above transaction, the validity of tender and agreement there under has to be treated as closed. It is further stated that the petitioner entered into an agreement dated 29.07.2009 under the first work order, but it did not enter into any agreement under second work order dated 15.03.2010 and without entering the agreement, the transaction cannot be held to be valid. It is further stated that mere submission of the invoice and supply of the goods do not confer any right to demand for payment without compliance of the rules and procedure. It is also stated that as the transaction made by the petitioner with the 1st respondent Corporation is not in compliance with certain administrative procedure, the bill could not be admitted by the 3rd respondent-Examiner of Accounts (CZ). Therefore, appropriate action will be taken to dispose of the claim of the petitioner on basis of merits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in spite of supplying the goods as required by the Corporation in pursuance of work order dated 15.03.2010, the respondents are not releasing the amount. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation contended that admittedly, the amount has already been paid to the contractor and that the signature of the financial auditor on the certificate of the receipt of the stock is not tallying with the date of the invoices and that a prior approval from the Commissioner is not being taken. He also contended that in pursuance of the agreement, the petitioner has entered into a contract on 28.02.2008 for supply of Santoor soaps, Coconut Oil for the financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09, that a work order dated 23.07.2009 issued for the contract amount of Rs.46,08,032/- and in pursuance of which, the petitioner has supplied the goods and the amount has been paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Zonal Commissioner issued a second work order dated 15.03.2010 for the supply of goods for the contract amount of Rs.2,51,347-20 paise. In pursuance of the said work order, undisputedly the goods are supplied by the petitioner to the Corporation. It is also not in dispute that the contract period is for the financial year upto 31.03.2010. The petitioner supplied the goods on 19.03.2010 in pursuance of the second work order and to that effect the drawing officer has given a certificate. Therefore, there is no dispute that the goods worth about Rs.2,51,347.20 paise have been supplied to the Corporation. The only ground taken by the Corporation is that as per the circular dated 25.04.2011 of the Commissioner, GHMC, Zonal Commissioner is requested not to pay any old bills and all bills prior to 01.04.2010 have to be submitted to the approval of the Commissioner. 6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent- Commissioner to take appropriate decision on the bills submitted by the petitioner and pass necessary orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C.BHANU, J Dated: 21st December, 2011 Ivd THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.28683 OF 2011 21st December, 2011 Ivd