Petitioner firm completed contractual work for respondent Board. Court directed respondent to process bills within three months or pay with 12% compound interest.
Direction to respondent to process bills within three months; failure to pay admissible amount attracts 12% compound annual interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15562 of 2012
| ====================================================== 1. M/S Natraj Transmission, Station Road, Gaya Through Its Proprietor, Chandra Shekhar Prasad S/O Late Harihar Singh Resident Of Mohalla- Gol Baggicha Gabra, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman 2. The Chief Engineer-Cum-General Manager, Magadh Electric Supply Area, Gaya 3. The Superintendent Of Electrical Engineer, Supply Circle, Gaya 4. The Account Officer, Gaya Electrical Circle, Gaya .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Anand For the Respondent/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Singh ====================================================== |
|
|---|---|
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER |
|
| 4 | 31-08-2012 As per the case of petitioner, under valid orders and in |
| terms of the Agreement, petitioner-firm took up the work of | |
| rehabilitation/erection/transportation in various villages of Gaya | |
| District and completed the same to the satisfaction of the officials | |
| of the respondent-Board. Thereafter it raised its bills. However, grievance is that admitted amount of the bills has not been paid to |
|
| the petitioner so far. |
It goes without saying that, if the petitioner has completed the work as per the contract agreement and to the satisfaction of the respondents, he is entitled for payment of his 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.15562 of 2012 (4) dt.31-08-2012
2 / 2
competent authorities, paucity of fund or non-allotment of fund also cannot and should not be an excuse for keeping his/its bills pending.
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 his/its bills in the light of work done by him/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 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 his remedy in accordance with law before an appropriate forum and claim an adjudication in respect of his entitlement of the said amount with interest.
(Jayanandan Singh, J)
Arvind/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to payment for completed work despite admitted bills not being paid?
M/S Natraj Transmission
Bihar State Electricity Board
Jayanandan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
