Disposed

Akram Jawed v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC20 Sept 2012CWJC/17651/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking payment of bills for road repair work completed in 2010. The single-judge bench held that paucity of funds is not an excuse for withholding payment and directed the respondent to examine bills and release the admissible amount within three months, failing which 12% compound interest must be paid.

What did the court decide?

Directed the concerned respondent to examine bills and release admissible amount within three months; failing which, respondent to pay 12% compound interest yearly.

Akram Jawed Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17651 of 2012 ====================================================== Akram Jawed, Son of Tanquir Ahmad, at and P.O. Bauram, P.S. Jamalpur, District Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Darbhanga. 4. The Executive Engineer, R.W.D. Works Division, Benipur, Darbhanga .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ratan Kumar Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri AAG11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 20-09-2012 As per the case of petitioner, under valid orders of the respondents, he executed the work of repairing of road in the year 2010 and completed the same to their satisfaction. Thereafter he submitted his bills. However, the grievance is that no amount of the bills has been paid to the petitioner so far.

¶2

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 competent authorities, paucity of fund or non-allotment of fund

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.17651 of 2012 (2) dt.20-09-2012

¶4

2 / 2

¶5

also cannot and should not be an excuse for keeping his bills pending.

¶6

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 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.

¶7

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶8

B.T/-

Akram Jawed v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akram Jawed 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

Jayant Pd. Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Alok Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Garg Welfare Society Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bheem Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Santosh Kumar Vs The Bihar Rajya Jal Parshad and Ors.

Birendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.