Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040005202023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/196/2023 M/s Reniya Enterprises and Anr. Having its registered office at D Sector, Itanagar, District Papum Pare, AP, Represented by its Attorney Holder Shri Tage Sambio. 2: Tage Sambio Age: Occupation : S/o Lt. Tage Tailyang Daying Ering Colony near Directorate of Tourism Itanagar PO/PS Itanagar District Papum Pare AP M. No. 943604000 VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and 4 Ors. Represented by Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Power and APDA Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Chief Engineer (E) Age: 0 Occupation : Eastern Electrical Zone Department of Power Page No.# 2/6 Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Superintending Engineer (E) Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Power Tezu Lohit District AP 5:The Executive Engineer (E) Age: 0 Occupation : Electrical Division Department of Power Roing Lower Dibang Valley District A Advocate for the Petitioner : Dugmar Kamduk, Mipe Ete,K Eshi,P Tashi Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC(Power),Lissing Perme BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 11-03-2025 Heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State assisted by Mr. L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel for the Power Department appearing for all the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his tender for supply of Household Electrification materials in Lower Dibang Valley District under Pradhan Page No.# 3/6 Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojana (SAUBHAGYA) for the tendered amount of Rs. 4,39,60,204/- (Rupees Four Crore Thirty Nine Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred and Four) was accepted by the respondent authorities concerned by issuing him a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) dated 24.10.2018. 3. The petitioner was asked to submit Contract Performance Guarantee of Rs. 62,69,230/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty), within 7 (seven) days of issuance of the LOA. Pursuant, thereto, an Agreement was signed between the Department of Power, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the petitioner, on 31.10.2018. According to the petitioner, in terms of the said Agreement, the petitioner had supplied all the materials. The Executive Engineer (Electrical), Roing Electrical Division, Department of Power, had also certified that inspection of the installation of electrical infrastructure under the SAUBHAGYA have been carried out successfully as per his Field Inspection Report, dated ‘Nil’. Also, Work Done/Completion Certificate was issued by the said authority on 07.04.2019, certifying the status of the project to be 100% completed. Despite the same, according to the petitioner, out of the tendered amount, a sum of Rs. 1,27,87,689/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Seven Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Six Page No.# 4/6 Hundred Eighty Nine) only still remains to be paid by the Power Department. The petitioner, therefore, requested the respondent authority concerned by submitting representation on 13.02.2023 requesting the release of the outstanding amount but since the same was not done, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the respondents, an intimation of short supply of materials was issued to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Roing Electrical Division on 23.12.2022, indicating that 4 (four) items stated in the intimation notice have not been supplied. As per the LOA, the said amount was quantified to be Rs. 1,28,44,220.00/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Eight Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty). Accordingly, final payment was going to be restricted. 5. The learned counsel, however, submits that as per the statement prepared by the Executive Engineer himself, it is clearly shown that the materials indicted in the intimation notice dated 23.12.2022, had actually been supplied by the petitioner. Such being the position, he submits that the amount yet to be paid to the petitioner is an admitted liability and the respondents may be directed to pay the same to the petitioner. Page No.# 5/6 5. Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the statements showing both the quantity and amount as per the LOA and actually supplied and erected in the field as relied upon by the petitioner, is only a statement for the purpose of authorisation of fund transfer through Public Finance Management System (PFMS) to various Executive Engineers and it does not necessarily mean that the petitioner has actually supplied the entire materials. In fact, the petitioner has been paid strictly on the basis of the quantity which he has actually supplied and there are clear shortages as mentioned in the intimation notice dated 23.12.2022. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that at any rate, the parties are bound by the Agreement signed on 31.10.2018 and as per Clause – 4.0 of the said Agreement, it has been specifically provided that in case of any differences and disputes, arising out of the Agreement or touching the subject matter of the Agreement, the same shall be decided by the process of settlement and arbitration as provided in the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. He, therefore, submits that there being clearly an alternative remedy provided in the Agreement itself, the instant writ petition will not be maintainable. Page No.# 6/6 7. Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it only appears that the claim of the petitioner that the amount which remains to be paid is an admitted liability, cannot be adjudicated by this Court in view of the stand taken by the respondents and more, particularly, in view of the fact that there is a provision provided in the Agreement for settlement of dispute between the parties by way of an arbitration. 8. Above being the position, the petitioner shall approach the Department authorities with an application for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the agreement dated 31.10.2018, within a period of 3 (three) weeks from today. The Department authorities, upon receipt of the same, shall take necessary steps for the appointment of an arbitrator, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within the outer limit of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner. 9. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant