Allowed

Saroj Narayan Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC3 Sept 2012CWJC/8130/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding delayed payment of bills for construction work. Court directed respondents to settle bills within three months and pay due amount, imposing 12% per annum interest for delay and explicitly barring paucity of funds as an excuse.

What did the court decide?

Directs respondents to settle bills within three months and pay due amount; 12% interest per annum if not paid; forbids reliance on paucity of funds.

Saroj Narayan Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8130 of 2009

¶2

====================================================== Saroj Narayan Prasad Singh, son of Late Shiv Nandan Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla- Habibpur, P.S. Sosarai, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1, The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Chief Engineer-1, Rural Works Department, Vishwasaraiya Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 3. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Circle-2, Harding Road, Irrigation Barak, Patna 4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division-2, Biharshariff, Nalanda 5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Biharshariff, Nalanda 6. The Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division-2, Biharshariff, Nalanda. 7. The Junior Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division-2, Biharsharif, Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr.Adv. with M/s Awadhesh Pd.Sinha& Surendra Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, A.C. to G.P.4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶3

4 03-09-2012 Case of the petitioner is that he was awarded work for construction of high label bridge over Sakri River in the district of Nalanda. It is stated that the petitioner submitted exhaustive bills to the respondents but his bills have not been finally examined and admitted amount has not been paid.

¶4

A counter affidavit has been filed in this case in which it is stated that on account of want of work testing report, pile load testing report and sanction regarding pile foundation, bills of the

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.8130 of 2009 (4) dt.03-09-2012

¶6

2 / 3

¶7

petitioner have not yet been finally examined and settled.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reports and the sanction order have to be submitted by the officials of the respondents themselves and the petitioner is not at all involved in the same. He submits that there is no laches on the part of the petitioner on account of which delay has been caused in final settlement of his bills, which is squarely attributable to the respondents and their officials. He further submits that whatever objection respondents had or whatever measurement and test reports, if required, they could have obtained it from their own officials, but only because the same are not being furnished by their subordinate officers, they cannot sit over the bills of the petitioner indefinitely and keep the same pending.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. Once, petitioner had submitted completion report and his bills, it is the respondents, who had to process it and settle the same. Whatever reports, measurement etc. was required from their own junior officials, they were required to obtain it at an early date to settle the bills of the petitioner expeditiously. Learned counsel for the respondents has also failed to point out any obligation of the petitioner in this regard or laches on his part.

¶10

In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.8130 of 2009 (4) dt.03-09-2012

¶12

3 / 3

¶13

with a direction to the respondents to finally examine the bills of the petitioner, after getting any report of measurement etc., as they may require, and settle it finally within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and pay due amount of the petitioner positively within that very period. In the process, they will be at liberty to controvert any claim of the petitioner if they do not find it correct and communication in this regard shall be sent to the petitioner immediately. In case, bills of the petitioner are not finally settled and admitted amount is not paid or any communication with regard to rejection of the bill or any amount thereof is not sent to the petitioner within the said three months, respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the due amount of the petitioner from the next day of expiry of the period. It is made clear that in the process, paucity of fund shall not be taken as a ground by the respondents for not paying the due amount of the petitioner.

¶14

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶15

Pradeep/-

Saroj Narayan Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Narayan Prasad Singh 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

Smt.Sarama Banerjee Vs Shyamal Kumar Banerjee

Dipak Kumar Banerjee Vs Dr. Sugata Chakroborty and Ors.

Jan Vikas Samiti Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bibi Kalma Begam Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Indu Bhushan Kant Vs the State Bank of Bikaner and Ja

Amar Nath Sharan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.