Disposed

Mithun Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Sept 2024WPC/4850/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor sought payment of Rs.21,88,369/- for a completed Amrit Sarovar pond construction work certified satisfactory by engineers. The Court held the writ court can direct payment of an admitted amount and disposed of the petition directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Deputy Commissioner, who must decide and pay within fixed periods or pass a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to submit fresh representation to respondent no.3; decision and payment within four weeks if payable, else reasoned order.

Mithun Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Public Procurement and Tenders | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P(C)No. 4850 of 2024

¶3

Mithun Kumar Gupta, aged about 31 years, son of Lakhan Lal Gupta, r/o atPandepura, PO-Makka, PS-Jobang, Makka, District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand (835214) ......… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, PO & PS-Doranda, Ranchi-834002

¶7

Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Zila Samaharnalay, Vikas Bhawan, PO & PS-Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga (835302)

¶8

Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohardaga-cum-Senior Incharge Officer, Pesharar Block, Zila Samaharnalay, Vikas Bhawan, PO & PS-Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga (835302)

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Lohardaga, Zila Samaharnalay, Vikas Bhawan, PO & PS-Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga (835302)

¶10

District Planning Officer, Lohardaga, Zila Samaharnalay, Vikas Bhawan, PO & PS-Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga (835302) ... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV

¶13

¶14

Order No.4/Dated:4^th September 2024

¶15

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.

¶16

In the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

¶17

a. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/Order(s)/direction(s) for directing the Respondent authorities to forthwith release the payment of Rs.21,88,369/- towards completion of the Amrit Sarovar Pond construction in Block Peshrar, Lohardaga pursuant to the Work Order dated 08.08.2022 bearing Patrank 498, issued under the signature of the Respondent No.5, along with statutory/banking interest rate from the date of completion of the project till the actual date of payment, And

¶18

b. For issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for directing the Respondent authorities to act upon the various representations that have been written by the petitioner to the

¶19

Respondent authorities, for remittance of the total amount towards completion of the Amrit Sarovar Pond construction in Block Peshrar, Lohardaga pursuant to the Work Order dated 08.08.2022 bearing Patrank 498, And

¶20

c. Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for which the petitioner is very much entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶21

Mr. Sankalp Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while drawing the attention of this Court towards Prapatra - D has submitted that the work in question has been completed which has been admitted by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Lohardaga who himself has certified through Prapatra-D that the said work has been successfully completed by the petitioner which is satisfactory but the amount of Rs.21,88,369/- has yet not been paid by the respondentauthorities.

¶22

Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, the learned State counsel is fair enough to submit that as per Prapatra-D the work in question has been successfully completed by the petitioner which is found to be satisfactory.

¶23

So far as the release of the amount is concerned, the writ Court should not interfere with but equally it is settled law that when the payable amount is admitted, the writ Court can pass the order after considering the admitted facts and, hence, this Court is of the view that the matter is required to be considered.

¶24

It is evident from Prapatra-D that the execution of the work in question has been completed and found to be satisfactory, which is quoted as under:

¶25

्ቚ प्ቔ D SCA योजना मद क योजनाओे को पं रू करन्ण के पशे चात् ् योजना हसतातररं ् ्ቚ मार्-प्ቔ

¶26

ं ् ्ቚ ्ቔ 1. ्ቚमाणर्त ककया जाता है कक पेशरार ्ቚखण्ड के ्ቇ ाम पेशरार में अमृत सरोवर अन्तर्णत पेशरार तालाब ननमाणर् कायण योजना ्ቚाक्कललत रालश मो० 24,86,782-00 (चौबबस लाख नियासी हजार सात सौ बैयासी) रू० को माह 05.10.2022 में पूर्ण कर ललया र्या है। योजना पर सम्पाददत कायण की र्ुर्व्ቈा संतोष्ቚद है। 2. आज ददनांक 08.10.22 को उक्त योजना से संबंधित ववभार्/पंचायत पेशरार ्ቚखण्ड पेशरार को हसतांतररत ककया र्या है। जजसे पंचायत के पररसमजतत पंजी में दजण करा ददया र्या है।

¶27

ह०/ह०/ह०/27.9.2022 27.9.2022 27.9.2022 कनीय अलभयंता का नाम एवं हसता्ቌ र सहायक अलभयंता का नाम एवं हसता्ቌर कायणपालक अलभयंता Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Lohardaga

¶28

¶29

Therefore, this Court, after considering Prapatra-D, is of the view that the work in question has been successfully completed by the petitioner within stipulated time which is found to be satisfactory by the Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Lohardaga.

¶30

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the respondent no.3, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Lohardaga within two weeks who shall take a decision with regard to payment of work in question and if the amount is found to be payable then it shall be paid within four weeks from the date of such decision. If the amount is being disputed, on any ground whatsoever, the same be communicated by passing a reasoned order within the aforesaid period.

¶31

With the aforesaid directions, W.P(C) No.4850 of 2024 stands disposed of.

¶32

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)

¶33

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶34

Sudhir

¶35

N.A.F.R.

¶36

Mithun Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithun Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shreya Kumari Tirkey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umaayush Multicom Pvt. Ltd. Thro One of Its Driectors Shri Lalan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Central Coal Field Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Jobi Vp Vs Basanti Bai

M/S Maa Tara Stone Works through Its Proprietor Namely Sunil Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of State Tax

Dhananjay Singh Alias Abhimanyu Jee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hadi Munda Alias Sanika Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand