Allowed

Bhagirath Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Jul 2014WPC/760/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, contractor for a Primary Health Centre, sought a writ for payment of admitted dues. The respondent admitted the debt in its counter affidavit, prompting the court to direct the Executive Engineer to make the payment within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Dhanbad to pay Rs. 9,41,805/- within six weeks.

Bhagirath Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 760 of 2012

¶2

Bhagirath Choudhary .… … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of Jharkhand and others … … respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate For the State : J.C. to A.G.

¶6

8/ 07.07.2014 Heard the parties.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Notice Inviting Tender was issued from eligible persons regarding construction of a building of Primary Health Centre at Mahrajganj, Tundi, Dhanbad. Pursuant thereto, several persons submitted applications and participated in the tender process. Having been found L 1, the work order was issued in favour of the petitioner. In course of time, after making some construction when the bills worth Rs. 9,41,805/- were submitted for its payment, the payment was not made and, therefore, this writ application has been filed for a direction to the authority to make payment of that amount which has been admitted to be due to the petitioner.

¶8

A counter affidavit has been filed, wherein statements, made in paragraphs-12, 13 and 18, are as follows:-

¶9

“12. That it is humbly stated and submitted that it was requested to release the difference amount for payment to contractor regarding his executed work and completion of the work in time vide this office letter no. 1772 dated 19.07.2008, letter no. 1744 dated 05.08.2008, letter no. 2214 dated 04.10.2008, letter no. 2433 dated 14.10.2008, letter no. 698 dated 09.04.2009 and letter no. 1749 dated 19.11.2011. No further fund was released for completion of work so the work has been stopped by the contractor.

¶10

That it is humbly stated and submitted that in this way due to paucity of fund the work has been stopped. After receiving the fund the remaining work may be completed.

¶11

That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph- 4 to 9, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is

¶12

humbly stated and submitted that the same are admitted from the answering respondent.”

¶13

From perusal of the statements made in the counter affidavit, it does appear that the State-respondent has admitted that those amounts are payable to the petitioner and thereby the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 9,41,805/-.

¶14

Accordingly, the respondent no. 2-Executive Engineer, Building Division, Dhanbad is hereby directed to make payment of the amount of Rs. 9,41,805/- within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order after getting all the paraphernalias in this regard completed.

¶15

With this observation, this writ application stands disposed of.

¶16

(R.R. Prasad, J.)

¶17

AKT

Bhagirath Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirath Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarfaraz Ahmad Vs Nasima Khatoon And Ors.

Arvind Kumar Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand Through Superintendent Of Police Vigilance Bureau Govt Of Jharkhand Ranchi

Priyanka Alias Priyanka Kumari Vs Jharkhand Academic Council Through Its Secretary And Anr.

Savitri Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ms Dudani Coke Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Sailesh Agarwalla and Ors. Vs Axis Bank Limited Through Its Chief Manager And Anr.

Bihar Khadi Association through Its Manager Sri Deo Nandan Roy and Anr. Vs Tata Iron And Steel Company Ltd.