Belated Representation Filed Beyond Court-Mandated Timelines and Containing Factual Inaccuracies Justifies Dismissal of Claim

The petitioner, a registered Government contractor, executed underground cable-laying works for BSNL under specific agreements.

Per the contracts, 10% was deducted from running bills for security deposit and another 10% for Acceptance Testing (A/T), refundable upon final report receipt.

The petitioner claimed completion of works but alleged the withheld amounts were not refunded despite filing representations and providing documentation in 2014.

Previously, in CWJC No. 10055 of 2015, the High Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within two weeks.

The petitioner filed this representation on 07.01.2019 (delayed), which was rejected by the Assistant General Manager via order dated 11.09.2019.

The respondents argued the claim was barred by delay, non-compliance with court timelines, and failure to submit mandatory "No Objection" certificates for contracts dating back to 1998–2002.

1. Whether the order dated 11.09.2019, rejecting the petitioner’s representation for refund of security deposits, was arbitrary or legally unsustainable.

2. Whether the petitioner complied with the procedural and substantive requirements of the contract and the previous court order for the release of withheld funds.

The court applied principles governing judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which limits interference to cases of arbitrariness, perversity, or illegality.

Doctrine of Strict Compliance with Judicial Directions, noting that liberty granted by a court must be exercised within the stipulated timeframe.

Contractual Obligations principle, wherein the refund of security deposits is contingent upon the fulfillment of specific conditions precedent (e.g., submission of No Objection Certificates and A/T reports) as defined in the tender/agreement.

The Court examined the impugned order and the respondent's counter-affidavit, finding that the petitioner failed to adhere to the two-week timeline set in the previous litigation (CWJC No. 10055 of 2015), filing the representation nearly three weeks late.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s representation was "vague" and contained factual inaccuracies, specifically the false claim that the High Court had previously ordered the actual payment of funds rather than merely a consideration of the representation.

Regarding the merits, the Court observed that the petitioner failed to provide the necessary "No Objection/No Claim Certificates" required under the contract.

The Court reasoned that since the contracts dated back to 1998–2002 and the petitioner submitted the Vendor Master Card only in 2014, the respondents were within their right to withhold funds due to non-fulfillment of contractual terms.

The Court found no evidence of perversity or lack of reasoning in the authority’s decision-making process.

The writ petition was dismissed, and all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, as the petitioner failed to show any arbitrary or illegal action by the authorities.