Disposed

Mahila Evam Shishu Kalyan Parishad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC13 Aug 2012CWJC/14610/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner NGO sought writ relief for non-payment of bills for health camp work completed in 2010. Court directed respondents to examine bills within three months and release admissible amount, imposing 12% compound interest for delay.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent to examine bills and pay admissible amount within three months, failing which to pay 12% compound interest.

Mahila Evam Shishu Kalyan Parishad Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14610 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Mahila Evam Shishu Kalyan Parishad, a registered Non Governmental Organization (N.G.O. For Short) through its Secretary, M. Shamim S/O Late Ibne Hassan, Resident of Village Kathalia, P.S. Singhwara, District Darbhanga.

¶3

.... .... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department Of Health and Family Welfare, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶6

State Health Society, Bihar through Its Chairman, Parivar Kalyan Bhawan, Sheikhpura, Patna. 3. District Health Society through the District Magistrate cum Chairman of the said Society, Samastipur. 4. Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer cum Member Secretary, District Health Society, Samastipur.

¶7

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Thakur Jai Singh, AC to SC26

¶8

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶9

2 13-08-2012 As per the case of petitioner, under the valid orders of the respondents, it executed the work of organizing health camps in different primary and secondary schools for medical check-up of the students and for distribution of health card amongst them in the year 2010. After completing the work to the satisfaction of the respondents, it submitted its bills. However, grievance is that the admitted amount of the bills has not been paid to petitioner.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by letter dated 25.02.2010, petitioner was asked to re-submit the bills in form which was also complied. Still bills have not been

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.14610 of 2012 (2) dt.13-08-2012

¶12

2 / 3

¶13

examined and processed and payment of due amount has not been made to petitioner so far.

¶14

It goes without saying that, if the petitioner has completed the work as per the contract agreement and to the satisfaction of the respondents, it is entitled for payment of its bills and the respondents have no authority to withhold the same indefinitely without any valid and cogent reasons. It may be made clear that, since petitioner claims to have done the work in terms of the agreement and/or under valid orders/authorization by the competent authorities, paucity of fund or non-allotment of fund cannot and should not be an excuse for keeping its bills pending.

¶15

In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent, responsible for payment of the amount of bills of the petitioner, to examine its bills in the light of work done by it and ensure release of admissible amount of the bills to the petitioner positively within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if necessary, by arranging fund for the same, failing which, the said respondent shall be liable to pay an interest on the amount, at the rate of 12% compoundable yearly, from his own pocket. In case, the said respondent finds that the amount of bill or any part thereof is not payable to the petitioner, he shall

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.14610 of 2012 (2) dt.13-08-2012

¶17

3 / 3

¶18

communicate the same to the petitioner in specific terms, assigning reasons thereof, within that very period. In that event, petitioner shall be at liberty to seek its remedy in accordance with law before an appropriate forum and claim adjudication in respect of its entitlement of the said amount with interest.

¶19

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶20

B.T/-

Mahila Evam Shishu Kalyan Parishad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahila Evam Shishu Kalyan Parishad v. The State Of Bihar 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

Ram Bilas Sahu Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gopal Jee Prasad and Ors. Vs The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation and Ors.

Virendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Kumar Choudhary Vs The Chairman And Managing Director and Ors.

Md. Mobarak Hussain Ansari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.