Disposed

Prashant Kumar Jha v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC6 Sept 2012CWJC/16506/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned respondent to examine the petitioner's bills and release the admissible amount within three months, imposing a liability for 12% compound interest if the amount is withheld without valid reasons. Funds were not the stated excuse.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the concerned respondent to examine the petitioner's work and ensure release of admissible bill amount within three months, with liability for 12% compound yearly interest if delayed.

Prashant Kumar Jha Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16506 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Prashant Kumar Jha, son of Dr. Lal Narayan Jha, resident of Mohalla Behind Sanjay Cinema Hall, Brahmpura, P.S. Town District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur. 2. General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur. 3. Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Sonepur. 4. Senior Manager, East Central Railway Co-ordination East Central Railway Sonepur. 5. Senior Divisional Engineer-III, East Central Railway, Sonepur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶3

2 06-09-2012 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in prayer portion of the writ application in course of the day.

¶4

Case of the petitioner is that he completed the work for construction of 22 Unit Type-II (D/S) Staff Quarter at Muzaffarpur to the satisfaction of the respondents. His final bills vide Bill No. FCC IX/196 dated 18.01.2010 have been settled and due amount has been paid.

¶5

Submission is that in spite of final settlement of the bills, security deposit and performance guarantee have not been refunded to the petitioner.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexures 3

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.16506 of 2012 (2) dt.06-09-2012

¶8

2 / 3

¶9

and 4 to show that on application for refund of performance guarantee, the competent authority has given remarks that “contractor has completed the above work satisfactorily and within currency. There is no adverse comment on the work and nothing is due with contractor against this C.A. Performance Guarantee as detailed above may be refunded”. He submits that the application was forwarded with the said note in 2010 but till today petitioner has not received any amount of bills or security deposit or performance guarantee.

¶10

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 etc. 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 his bills pending.

¶11

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

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.16506 of 2012 (2) dt.06-09-2012

¶13

3 / 3

¶14

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 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 adjudication in respect of his entitlement of the said amount with interest.

¶15

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶16

B.T/-

Prashant Kumar Jha v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar Jha v. The Union Of India 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

Panagarh Engineering Works Vs The North Eastern Railway and Ors.

Binay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ramjit Sharma and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Environment and Forest Department, and Ors.

Prasant Kumar Vs The National Insurance Company and Ors.

M/s Ramji Mistri Saw Mill and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nawal Kishore Pd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.