HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P(C) 91/2024
Kabita Rani Paul ----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Union of India and others ----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate
Mr. A. Baran, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. BN Majumder, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B. Majumder, CGC
Mr. R. Saha, Advocate
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON’BLE
MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
HON’BLE
Order
28/02/2024
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel
for the respondents-IOCL and learned CGC for respondents- Union of India.
The petitioner is a LPG Transporter who claimed to be employed for the
purpose of transportation of Indane LPG cylinders in vertical position on unit
rate basis, ex-Agartala (Bodhjungnagar) Bottling Plant for a period of three
years, with a provision of two yearly extensions. She has been selected after
being successful in an NIT. The petitioner is also a member of the north-East
Packed LPG Transporter Association.
The grievance of the petitioner relates to non-payment of differential
amounts upon implementation of Joint RTD Verification. The petitioner also
has a grievance relating to non-payment of difference of Cap Shortage bill.
According to the petitioner, Joint RTD Verification is undertaken for the
purposes of determination of the distance to be covered during transportation of
LPG cylinders and also for the purposes of making payment of Cap shortage.
The petitioner has been raising her bills for each journey undertaken by the
vehicles of the petitioner. From each such bill the IOCL has been making
deduction under the heads of Goods and Service Tax. IOCL is liable to pay the
balance tax payable to the petitioner on the provision of 2 years extensions. The
petitioner has approached the General Manager, LPG Department, Indian Oil
Bhawan, Assam, through letters which had been received on 08.06.2023 at
Gauhati, for redressal of her grievances relating to fixing of proper rates, the
payment of security deposit and also implementation of Joint RTD Physical
Verification undertaken on different dates.
It is contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that though the
terms of the Letter of Intent contains an Arbitration Clause XI, but in absence
of any specific denial there exists no dispute for the petitioners to raise in an
Arbitration proceedings. The petitioner also contends that the Arbitration
Clause provides for the seat of Arbitration at Gauhati. However, since the
transportation of LPG Gas cylinders is being done within the State of Tripura,
therefore, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court. The petitioner
prays that a direction may be issued upon the respondent-IOCL and its
authorities to make the payment of Cap Shortage bill and differential amount
under the Bill of Service consequent upon Joint RTD Verification Certificate
and the balance tax payable to the petitioner on the said differential amounts
after adjusting the tax already deducted from each of the bills raised by the
petitioner alongwith interest thereupon till its actual payment.
Learned senior counsel for the IOCL submits that instructions have not
been received since the matter has been taken up for the first time before this
court. It is submitted that as per averments of the writ petition, no dues are
shown to be admitted. Hence, the writ petition should not be entertained.
However, he submits that in case the representation or notice of the petitioner
has not been attended to, the respondent-authorities may consider the same in
accordance with law after consideration of the relevant records relating to the
transaction.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
At the outset, it needs to be observed that the prayer raised by the writ
petitioner relates to claim of admissible dues arising out of an award of work
for transportation of LPG cylinder by the IOCL. The claim of payment also
depends upon some Joint RTD Verification report. None of the documents
enclosed to the writ petition establish that the claim of the petitioner has been
admitted. However, it appears that the Joint Verification is conducted in
presence of the officials of the IOCL. It also appears that the representation of
notices served by the petitioner have not been disposed.
In that view of the matter, in absence of any dues being admitted, no writ of
mandamus or direction can be issued under writ jurisdiction of this court for
payment of the amount claimed. However, if the representation/notices of the
petitioner containing her grievance and claim for payment have not been
considered, the competent authority under the respondent-IOCL would consider
the same in accordance with law within a reasonable time. Let it be made clear
that we have not gone into the merits of the contentions of the petitioner as to
the admissibility of the claims.
It further appears from the averments of the writ petition and submissions
of learned counsel for the parties that there is Arbitration Clause in the NIT
under which the Letter of Acceptance has been issued in favour of the
petitioner. As such, the petitioner, if so aggrieved by the decision of the
competent authority may raise the dispute, if any, in an appropriate
proceeding/arbitration proceeding in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
(ARINDAM LODH),J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Digitally signed by SAIKAT KAR
SAIKAT KAR
Date: 2024.03.01 14:46:43
+05'30'