S/L 4 20.01.2025 Court. No. 551 Suvayan WPA 2778 of 2009 Sri Kishori Lal Tylsyan & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Indranath Mukherjee Mr. Sukanta Mondal …for the petitioners. Mr. Amitabha Nayak Mr. Subrata Santra …for the U.O.I. 1. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus against the respondent authorities commanding them to make payment to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 15,70,371/- towards interest for the delayed payment beyond 30 days from the date of submission of the bills by the writ petitioners. 2. In course of his argument Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page Nos. 19 to 22 of the writ petition being Annexures – P1 and P2. It is contended by Mr. Mukherjee that pursuant to the said two tenders the writ petitioners being the distributor of different pharmaceutical company, viz., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Wockhard Ltd., Wallace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Welcure Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Hindusthan Antibiotics Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprise), Klar Sehen Pvt. Ltd, Ives Drugs (India) Pvt. Ltd, Indore and Eastern Medikit 2 Ltd and the said pharmaceutical companies themselves also participated in the said tenders on condition that payment by the respondent authorities is/are to be disbursed within 30 days from the date of the receipt of medicines by the consignors. 3. In support of his contention Mr. Mukherjee draws further attention of this Court to page Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 28 of the writ petition whereby and whereunder the aforementioned different pharmaceutical companies have expressly stated that for supply of medicines as per the above mentioned two tenders payment(s) is/are to be disbursed within 30 days as mentioned supra. 4. In his next fold of submission Mr. Mukherjee draws attention of this Court to page No. 31 of the writ petition being a report dated September 15, 2018 as submitted by one H.R. Agarwal and Associates, Chartered Accountants of the writ petitioners’ company. It is submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that from the said report of the Chartered Accountants of the writ petitioners it would reveal that on account of delayed payment by the respondent authorities against their pending bills for supply of medicines the writ petitioners suffered loss of interest. Mr. Mukherjee draws attention of this Court page Nos. 32 to 41 of the instant writ petition. It is submitted that from the said document being the bill for Rs. 15,70,371/- along with its attachments being the particulars of the bill submitted with the respondent authorities and the particulars of the payment received 3 from the respondent authorities by the writ petitioners it would reveal that a substantial days of delay occurred in clearing the bills of the writ petitioners on account of the supply of medicine by the writ petitioners for which the writ petitioners suffered loss of interest to tune of Rs. 15,70,371/-. 5. Mr. Mukherjee, thus submits that it is a fit case for issuing appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities for disbursement of the aforementioned amount along with occurred interest thereon. 6. Per contra, Mr. Nayak, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities at the very outset also draws attention of this Court to the copies of the said two tenders which have been annexed with the instant writ petition at page Nos. 19 to 22. It is submitted by Mr. Nayak that from the terms and conditions of the said tenders it would clearly reveal that one of the terms of the said tenders that post supply bill in duplicate together with supporting voucher should be submitted to the consignee for payment within 30 days subject to correct supply and satisfactory performance of the contract. 7. It is thus submitted by Mr. Nayak that in terms of the conditions of the tenders it has never been disclosed that railway authority is duty bound to clear the bills within 30 days and on the contrary it has been specifically mentioned that the bills are to be submitted by the consignor after delivery of the medicines to the consignee 4 within 30 days from the date of delivery in order to enable the respondent authorities to disburse payment subject to satisfactory supply. 8. In his next fold of submission Mr. Nayak draws attention of this Court to paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit- in-opposition. It is submitted that it has been stated on behalf of the respondent authorities on affidavit that there were instances of poor quality of drugs supplied by the petitioners to the Eastern Railway authority which have been duly noticed by one of its functionaries, viz., C.M.D./Eastern Railway and accordingly the writ petitioners were intimated for arranging for replacement of supply. Drawing attention to page No. 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition it is submitted by Mr. Nayak that it is the further case of the railway authority that system deduction of liquidated damage at the rate of two per cent that is sum equivalent to two per cent of the total value of order including the element of taxes, duties, freight, etc. per month or part thereof subject to maximum of 10 per cent of the total value of the order and after denial clauses, the said amount is deducted from the outstanding bills. It is thus submitted by Mr. Nayak that when the said pharmaceutical companies as well as their distributor that is the writ petitioners herein had accepted the terms of the contract and supplied medicines, there cannot be any occasion for disbursement of interest for the alleged delay in clearing the bills. 5 9. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court it reveals to this Court that from the different terms and conditions of the two tenders it appears that it has nowhere been stated by the railway authority that all payments against the supply of medicines would be disbursed within 30 days. As rightly submitted by Mr. Nayak rather it has been clearly mentioned that the consignors shall have to submit its bill to the consignee within 30 days from the date of correct supply and satisfactory performance of the contract. 10. It has also been noticed by this Court that in the affidavit-in-opposition there is allegation on the part of the respondent authorities that there were instances of supply of poor quality of drugs by the writ petitioners which has been duly noticed by the functionaries of the railway authorities and it has also been stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that there is a system for deduction of liquidated damages. It reveals further from the writ petition especially from page Nos. 30 to 41 that the writ petitioners had claimed interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. 11. It thus appears to this Court that there lies a dispute with regard to the discharge of contractual obligations by and between the writ petitioners and the respondent authorities and this Court further notices that there exists a dispute with regard to the delayed supply of medicines including supply of poor quality of medicines. 6 12. In considered view of this Court the disputes which have been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs can be adjudicated in a civil court by trial on evidence which machinery the writ court lacks. 13. It thus appears to this Court that the writ petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy to ventilate its grievance as has been mentioned in the instant writ petition. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition and the instant writ petition being WPA 2778 of 2009 is thus dismissed. 15. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 16. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)