Disposed

Ms Narendra Prasad Represented through Its Proprietor Narendra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Apr 2024WPC/2551/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor sought release of Rs. 6,01,639/- payable under a Water Resources Department work order. The State informed the Court that Rs. 5,35,211/- had been released. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file a representation for the balance amount and security deposit.

What did the court decide?

Admissible bill amount released by State; liberty to seek balance via representation to respondent no. 3

Ms Narendra Prasad Represented through Its… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2551 of 2022

¶3

M/s Narendra Prasad ----- Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand & Ors. ----- Respondents

¶6

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to G.P-II

¶9

06/08.04.2024 Heard Mr. P.A.S Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, learned AC to G.P-II.

¶10

In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to release the bill to the tune of Rs. 6,01,639/- against the Work Order as contained in Memo No. 274 dated 08.03.2014 corresponding to Agreement No. 26F2/13-14 dated 08.03.2014.

¶11

Briefly stated, the facts reveal that the petitioner, who is a contractor with the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand had applied for and was allotted work as contained in Work Order vide Memo No. 274 dated 08.03.2014 corresponding to Agreement No. 26F2/13-14 dated 08.03.2014 pertaining to “Residual work of Anganbari Kendra at Lalpur, Gamhariya and Rukki Jamtoli, Block- Ghaghra”. As per the agreement, the petitioner had deposited earlier the earnest money and had also deposited the initial security deposit of Rs. 37,200/-.

¶12

It is a case of the petitioner that the First Phase of work was executed and as per the measurement, the sum of Rs. 6,01,639/- was payable to the petitioner. Since the said amount was not released in favour of the petitioner, he had approached the concerned respondents, but of no avail.

¶13

On 04.04.2024, this Court had directed the learned G.PII to take further instructions as it was the case of the State respondents that funds were not being released by Integrated Tribal

¶14

Development Agency which prevented the respondent Water Resources Department in making payment of the amount to the petitioner.

¶15

Today, on instruction, learned A.C to GP-II has submitted that an amount of Rs. 5,35,211/- has been released in favour of the petitioner which fact has been accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has further stated that so far as the balance amount is concerned as well as the security deposit and interest, he may be permitted to approach the concerned respondents for redressal of his grievance.

¶16

In view of the fact that the admissible amount has already been released in favour of the petitioner, this writ application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 3 by filing a representation stating in details the rest amount claimed by him as well as the other grievances he has within a period of three weeks from today. If such representation is preferred, the respondent no. 3 shall consider and dispose it of by a reasoned and speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶17

It goes without saying that if any of the amount claimed by the petitioner on his representation is found to be admissible, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner expeditiously. This writ application stands disposed of.

¶18

It is made clear that so far as the prayer for price escalation, which is prayer no. 1(c) of the writ application is concerned, this Court has not gone into the said aspect.

¶19

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶20

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶21

Shamim-Preet/-

Ms Narendra Prasad Represented through Its Proprietor Narendra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Narendra Prasad Represented through Its Proprietor Narendra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

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

Dulali Saha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Principal Secretary Department of Rural Development

Naquee Ali Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary Food Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department

The State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs Harinandan Rajak

M/S Dipanshu Promoter and Builders Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vikas Kumar Sanehi Vs the Nbcc (India) Ltd. through Its Chairman and Managing Director

Manoj Kumar Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Dipanshu Promoter and Builders Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Namely Vikas Kumar Sanehi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Deptt of Higher Technical Education