Date: 07.04.

2017

Mr. Binoy Bhusan Bohidar

At. Lecture’s Colony
Near Collectorate Office
Jharsuguda, Odisha
9439661216

Sub: Explanation para wise against your notice dated 07.03.2017 on behalf of Mr. Sambhu
Sharan Singh.

Dear Sir,

With reference to your notice dated 07.03.2017 we would like to inform you the
following:

1) You have stated in para No. 2that our sub-contractor Mr. Sukesh Kumar
requested your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh to let out 4 rooms in your client’s
residence on rental basis @ Rs 35000/- per month.
Reply:
We are not aware of the fact neither we are concerned about the matter.

2) That you have stated in para No. 3 our sub-contractor Mr. Sukesh Kumar
requested your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh to provide welding rectifier
machine along with other machinery and tools on rental basis @ Rs. 3500/- per
month.

Our Reply:

Neither your client intimated to BGRE Officials before providing said machineries
nor our sub-contractor intimated to us before hiring said machineries from your
client. We are not aware or concerned about any agreement made by you with
Mr. Sukesh Kumar.

3) That, you have stated in para No. 4, our sub-contractor Mr. Sukesh Kumar
issued a cheque bearing No. 000040 dated 28.01.2016 drawn from HDFC Bank,
Begusarai Branch amounting to Rs. 50,000/- towards advance for the rent of the
aforesaid complex / residence, which was deposited by your client with his
banker, but the same has been returned back to your client for the reason of
“insufficient fund” in the account of Mr. Sukesh Kumar dated 08.04.2016.
Reply:
We are not responsible for cheque bounce of Mr. Sukesh Kumar.

4) That, you have stated in para No. 5, your client let out the complex and supplied
the machinery as aforesaid to our sub-contractor and the same were utilized by
our sub-contractor for six months without making any payment towards rent of
the complex and the machinery and hence there is, in total dues of Rs.3,63,650/-
with our sub-contractor.
Reply:
a) Your client Mr. Sabhu Sharan Singh never informed to the officials of BGR
Energy Systems Ltd before providing his house on rent and machineries to
our sub-contractor Mr. Sukesh Kumar.
b) We are ignorant about your client’s outstanding Rs 3,63,650/- with our sub-
contractor.
c) We are not responsible for your client’s due amount Rs. 3,63,650/- with our
sub-contractor. None of BGR Energy Systems Ltd Officials have committed in
writing to your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh for clearing your client’s dues
whatever pending with our sub-contractor.

5) That, you have stated in para No. 6, your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh
requested our sub-contractor Mr. Sukesh Kumar several times and also
throughrepresentatives i.e Notices No.7 to 10 and also supplied the bills against
the dues pending with Mr. Sukesh Kumar amounting to Rs. 3,65,650/- and Mr.
Sukesh Kumar nor aforesaid representatives the Notices No.6 to 10 took any
care for making payment.

Reply:
a) We are ignorant about your client’s outstanding of Rs. 3,63,650/- with our
sub-contractor.
b) We are not responsible for your client’s dues amount Rs. 3,63,650/- with our
sub-contractor or none of BGR Energy Systems Ltd Officials have committed
in writing to your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh for clearing your client’s
dues whatever pending dues with our sub-contractor.

6) That, you have stated in para No. 7, Mr. Sukesh Kumar and aforesaid
representatives the Notices No. 7 to 10 did not pay the aforesaid dues amount of
Rs. 3,63,650/- on different pretext, your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh
requested Mr. Sukesh Kumar and Notices No. 1 to 5 who were well aware of the
facts, that being the Sukesh Kumar working under the aforesaid Notices No. 1 to
5 as mentioned earlier, to realize due amount of Rs. 3,63,650/- from Sukesh
Kumar and Notices No. 1 to 5 also assured your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh
to realize the same from Sukesh Kumar or the Notices No. 1 to 5 did not take the
responsibility to make the payment of the said amount to your client Mr. Sambhu
Sharan Singh.
Reply:
a) We are the Notices No. 1 to 5 are ignorant of the matterregarding dues of Rs.
3,63,650/- of your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh with Mr. Sukesh Kumar and
we are not responsible for your client’s due amount Rs. 3,63,650/- with our sub-
contractor Mr. Sukesh Kumar or none of BGR Energy Systems Ltd Officials have
committed in writing to your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh for clearing your
client’s dues whatever pending with our sub-contractor

b) The Notices No. 1 to 5 have never assured your client to clear the dues Rs.
3,63,650/- with Mr. Sukesh Kumar.

c) In this connection, please note that when your client had come to us, we
categorically clarified that we have nothing to do in this matter, however since
they had come, on sympathetic ground we would try to contract Mr. Sukesh
Kumar and request him to settle the matter. It may please be noted that your
client had earlier informed that Rs 1.7 Lacs was the pending amount, but now
you are intimating a different figure. However, to help your client we had
contacted Mr. Bhawan Singh, the Site In charge of Mr. Sukesh Kumar who
informed that one Bolero Car of Mr. Bhawan Singh was seized by your client
against the pending amount and they further informed that they would settle the
matter directly with your client.

7) That, you have stated in para No. 8, the responsibility was taken by Notices No.
1 to 5, your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh went after the Notices No. 1 to 5 for
this payment as aforesaid amount but also the Notices 1 to 5 took different pleas
with an intention to shrink the Notices 1 to 5 responsibility in this regard by
shifting the burden of the aforesaid payment on the heads of one and another.
Reply:
1. Please note that no responsibility was taken by the Notices No. 1 to 5 and hence
there is no point in shrinking of responsibilities.

8) That, you have stated in para No. 9 your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh run
after Sukesh Kumar, Mr. Sandipan Ghosh being given with the responsibility to
the Notices No. 1 & 3 to 5, Mr. Sandipan Ghosh escape himself from the
responsibility and made a false report before the police against your client Mr.
Sambhu Sharan Singh, but the same became an boomerang on Mr. Sandipan
Ghosh along with Notices 1 & 3 to 5, when after due meditation directed the
Notices No. 1 to 5 to make the payment, as on investigation it was found by the
police that your client is bonafide claimant of the aforesaid amount of Rs.
3,63,650/- from Mr. Sukesh Kumar.

Reply:
1. No responsibility was fixed by anybody on Notice -2 to clear the payment, neither
Notice -2 has diverted the responsibilities to No. 1 & 3 to 5 to make any payment
 to your client. Please note that Banharpali Police Station has not directed us to
make any payment. They have only requested us to try to settle the matter.
2. Please note that we have not made any false complaints against your client. We
have made all genuine complaints with local police station when your client
created nuisanceson various occasions which are as follows:

a) On 23.12.2016, complaint petition submitted to Banharpali Police Station that

your client was creating nuisance at labour camp such as your client and his
daughter came to our labour colony and locked labour colony gate forcefully
where staying about 3000 Nos. labours at 05:00Hrs on 23.012.2016 for which
creating nuisance of your client and his daughter at labour colony our maximum
labours have not proceeded them for duty on 23.12.2016 due to their scare and
we got monetary loss and our workers mentally disturbed for the criminal
activities of your client on 23.12.2016.

b) On 13.01.2017, complaint petition submitted to Banharpali Police Station that

your client threatening to our engineers and HOD- Security and they have
scared and mentally disturbed for the criminal activities of your client.

c) On 02.02.2017, complaint petition submitted to Banharpali Police Station that

your client and his associate came to our staff colony at 08:00Hrs on 02.02.2017
and they threatened and detained our staff bus for not go to project site for which
interference to our staffs by your client our staffs went to project site by 02 Hrs
late on duty and we got monetary loss and our staffs mentally disturbed for
the criminal activities of your client and his associate on 02.02.2017.

d) On 04.03.2017, complaint petition submitted to Banharpali Police Station that

your client has used filthy language and threatened to beat our staff of Mr. Ashok
Kumar Nayak – Senior Manager (P&A) over phone at 19:30 Hrs on 02.03.2017
and F.I.R has registered at Banharpali Police Station vide case No. 0041 on
06.03.2017 and Mr. Ashok Kumar Nayak (P&A) was mentally disturbed for the
criminal activities of your client.

e) On 03.03.2017, your client has submitted application to Banharpali Police Station

for about M/s. Sukesh Kumar regarding balance payment of house rent and
rectifier machines and your client stated clearly in his application on 03.03.2017
that M/s. Sukesh Kumar not cleared the payment of rectifier machines and house
rent, for which the BGR Energy Systems Ltd is not liable to clear your client’s
dues amount Rs. 3,63,650/- .

f) On 15.03.2017, explanation letter submitted to Banharpali Police Station against

Banharpali Police Station DR No. 390/PS dated 10.03.2017 on clarification
against your client application dated 03.03.2017 was addressed to the Inspector
Incharge, Banharpali Police Station by your client for dues payment of your client
with Mr. Sukesh Kumar.
g) On 17.03.2017, explanation letter submitted to Banharpali Police Station with
written statement of Noticees No. 1 to 2 & 4 against Banharpali Police Station DR
No. 407/PS dated 14.03.2017 against your client application dated 03.03.2017.

h) That, there is no any legal provision endorsed in the Indian Constitution that
principle employers of third party will be settled financial issues whatever else
with vendors / service providers / house owners by third party without any
statutory documentary evidences against terms & conditions of agreement / work
order / purchase order, for which the employers were issued LOI / work order /
service order / purchase order to their vendors / service providers / distributors of
materials before commencement of any work at employers premises to avoid any
disputes / legal aspects may be ascended by both parties in future, that’s why the
employers made agreement with the vendors / service provider / distributors of
materials before commencement of any type of work at employer’s premises.

i) But, however, your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh did not make any agreement
with our sub-contractor Mr. Sukesh Kumar before occupying your client complex /
residence on rent basis and your client also did not make any agreement before
providing your client machineries to our sub-contractor Mr. Sukesh Kumar.
Moreover, nether your client informed to the Noticees No. 1 to 5 before providing
your client complex / residence / machineries on rent basis in written nor any
commitment given to your client by the Noticees No. 1 to 5 in written for claiming
your client’s dues amount whatever else with our sub-contractor before / after
providing your client complex / residence / machineries on rent basis

j) That, the BGRE Energy Systems Ltd has issued service order to M/s. Sukesh
Kumar to carry out fabrication and erection of fire water tank – 2000KL and
fabrication & erection of degassed tank – 2 Nos. vide service order No.
3300014416 dated 03.10.2015 and there is no any terms & conditions mentioned
/ assured to clear any dues payments whatever else with our sub-contractors to
third party from BGR Energy Systems Ltd.

k) In view of the above circumstances that, the advocate notice served by you
against Noticees No. 1 to 5 instead of our sub-contractor Mr. Sukesh Kumar on
primafacie evidences without any documentary evidences against statutory.

l) Whereas, we hereby request you that the advocate notice served against
Noticees No. 1 to 5 may please by revoked on the grounds where your client
fabricated biased allegations on primafacie evidences against Noticees No. 1 to
5 instead of our sub-contractor Mr. Sukesh Kumar and his associates.

m) Further, we would like to bring your kind notice that Noticees No. 1 to 5 or BGR
Energy Systems Ltd may be filed writ petition to the Honourable Court on
defamation & indemnity case if tortured / harassed intensely in criminal activities
by your client to the Noticees No. 1 to 5 against law
That, you have stated in para No. 10,as it is matter of payment of dues and you the
Noticees No. 1 to 10 are a company and contractor, the police through have sympathy
to your client, but could not realize the amount from Mr. Sukesh Kumar till today, so also
the Noticees did not take any steps to make the payment of the aforesaid dues amount
of Rs. 3,63,650/- to your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh till yet as result of which your
client is suffering a lot both financially and with mental agony.

Reply:
It is not true. Please note that Police has not directed BGRE to pay as they have found
that your allegation against BGRE is baseless and you have unlawfully forcefully seized
one Bolero car of Mr. Bhawan Singh.

In view of the above, it is apparent that Notices Nos. 1 to 5 are innocent and not at all
involved in the matter.

We would, therefore, request you to advise your client to settle the matter directly with
Mr. Sukesh Kumar.

But, your client already done criminal activities against labours, workers & senior
officers of BGR Energy Systems Ltd for which criminal activities of your client, the
following complaint petitions lodged against your client atBanharpali Police Station:

That, one bolero vehicle was seized forcefully by your client Mr. Sambhu Sharan Singh
from Mr. Bhawan Singh and your client kept Mr. Bhawan Singh’s vehicle in his
possession i.e your client already resolved his dues payment by vehicle snatching them
and your client demanding dues amount of MR. Sukesh Kumar to Noticees No. 1 to 5
and served advocate notice by you without any lawful justification and fabricated biased
allegation on primafacie evidences against BGR Energy Systems Ltd and Noticees No.
1 to 5.