Allowed

Santosh Kumar v. The Bihar Rajya Jal Parshad and Ors.

Patna HC20 Sept 2012CWJC/17694/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged delayed payment of bills for completed construction work by the respondent body. The Court held that paucity of funds cannot excuse withholding payment of admissible bills and directed the respondent to examine bills and release the amount within three months, with 12% compound interest for delay.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is directed to examine the petitioner's bills and ensure release of the admissible amount within three months. If any part remains unpaid, reasons must be communicated, failing which 12

Santosh Kumar Vs The Bihar Rajya Jal Parshad… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17694 of 2012

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Santosh Kumar, aged about 55 years, son of Shri Sewak Sinha, resident of New Karbigahiya, P.S. Jakkanpur, P.O. G.P.O, District and Town at Patna800001.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Bihar Rajya Jal Parshad, through its Managing Director, West Boring Canal Road, near Rajapur Pul, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar Rajya Jal Parshad , West Boring Canal Road, near Rajapur Pul, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Bihar Rajya Jal Parshad, West Boring Canal Road, near Rajapur Pul, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Bihar Rajya Jal Parshad, West Boring Canal Road, near Rajapur Pul, Patna.

¶8

The Executive Engineer, Bihar Rajya Jal Parshad, Ganga Plan Project, Sewerage Treatment Plant, S.T.P., Patna – 800007. 6. The Assistant Engineer, Bihar Rajya Jal Parshad, Ganga Plan Project, Sewerage Treatment Plant, S.T.P., Patna – 800007.

¶9

.... .... Respondents

¶10

====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shiv Kumar,

¶12

Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajeet Singh, Advocate

¶13

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

¶14

2 20-09-2012 As per the case of petitioner, under an agreement and valid orders of the respondents, he executed the Luminous work around the Lagoon, Fish Pond and Campus under S.T.P. Paheri, Patna and executed the same to their satisfaction. Thereafter he submitted his bills.

¶15

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that amount of the bills has been accepted and 50% of amount of the bills has been paid, but 50% of the amount is not being paid on account of paucity of fund. He submits that in fact, under the

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.17694 of 2012 (2) dt.20-09-2012

¶17

2 / 3

¶18

orders of the respondents, he executed 7% etc. work for which bill was also submitted but its payment has not been made. He also submitted that 5% security amount has also not been refunded. He submits that bill amount has been accepted by the Executive Engineer, vide Annexure-3, who has requested the Chief Engineer of the Board to release necessary funds for payment to the petitioner.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.17694 of 2012 (2) dt.20-09-2012

¶22

3 / 3

¶23

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.

¶24

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶25

B.T/-

Santosh Kumar v. The Bihar Rajya Jal Parshad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. The Bihar Rajya Jal Parshad 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.

Birendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Akram Jawed Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.