Partly allowed

Birendra Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC30 Aug 2012CWJC/15812/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought payment of pending bills for completed work. The court held that fund paucity is no excuse for withholding payment and directed the respondent to examine bills and release admissible amounts within three months, with liability for 12% compound interest on default.

What did the court decide?

Direction to examine bills and release admissible amount within three months; 12% compound interest on default.

Birendra Kumar Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15812 of 2012 ====================================================== Birendra Kumar Sinha .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiwesh Chandra Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar A.C. To G.P.-1 ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 30-08-2012 As per the case of petitioner, under valid work orders, he has executed some work in Civil Court, Banka in the year, 2009 and completed the same to the satisfaction of the respondents. Thereafter, he submitted his bills to the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Banka. However, grievance of the petitioner is that, though part payment has been made, rest of the amount is still due and the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Banka is expressing his inability to pay the rest amount on the ground of paucity of fund.

¶3

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 reason. It may be made clear that since petitioner claims to have done the work in terms of the agreement under valid orders by the competent authorities, paucity

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.15812 of 2012 (2) dt.30-08-2012

¶5

2 / 2

¶6

of fund or non-allotment of fund can not and should not be an excuse for keeping his bills pending.

¶7

In the circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent, responsible for payment of the amount of the bills of the petitioner, to examine his bills in the light of work done by him 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 the 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.

¶8

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶9

Sudha/-

Birendra Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birendra Kumar Sinha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lila Devi Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Subodh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Brajendra Nath Trivedi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Ellite Leasing Ltd. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Durga Construction Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.