Allowed

Mithlesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC16 Jul 2014CWJC/11922/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus for recovery of paid work dues from Patna Municipal Corporation authorities. Court held fund paucity is not a valid defense post work order and directed authorities to pay admissible amount within three months. Application disposed.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay admissible amount within three months; communicate reasons if any amount is rejected.

Mithlesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11922 of 2014

¶2

====================================================== Mithlesh Kumar, aged about 48 years S/o Sri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Ashok Nagar, Road No. 9A, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna

¶3

.... .... Petitioner

¶4

Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Urban Development AND Housing Department, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶5

Commissioner cum Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna- 1

¶6

Deputy Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna1 4. Chief Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna- 1

¶7

Executive Engineer, Kankarbagh Division, Budh Marg, Patna- 1 .... .... Respondents

¶8

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. M.K. Mishra, GP25

¶9

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 16-07-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:

¶12

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to make payment the admitted dues to the petitioner amounting (i) Rs.2,67,042 (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Siven Thousand and Fourty Two only) for ward no.34 under Patna Municipal Corporation for repairing of main hole/ catch pit vide Tender 18/F/2010 which was done by the petitioner and also directing the respondent authorities to make payment the aforesaid dues with 12% compound interest because the work was done as per instructions, same was examined and bills were also prepared but till date payment is not being made without

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.11922 of 2014 (2) dt.16-07-2014

¶14

¶15

assigning any reasons.”

¶16

In the considered opinion of this Court when from the materials on record it is absolutely clear that there is no dispute with regard to quality of work done by the petitioner in pursuance of the work order issued by the authorities of Patna Municipal Corporation, his payment of admissible amount should have been made. The plea taken by the respondents authorities of the Corporation that there was paucity of fund had to be considered before issuance of work order. Once the work order was issued it was not the concern of the contractor to find out as to whether the Corporation had the requisite allotment of fund or not.

¶17

In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the respondents authorities to ensure that whatever admissible amount found payable to the petitioner is still due the same must be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. If, on the other hand, any amount is not admitted and thus not found payable, reasons thereof should also be communicated to the petitioner within the same period of three months.

¶18

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.

¶19

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶20

surendra/-

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.11922 of 2014 (2) dt.16-07-2014

¶22

¶23

Mithlesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithlesh Kumar 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

Mithilesh Kumar Giri Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chandra Mani Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Neelam Prasad Vs The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Braj Nandan Prasad Rai and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sunil Das Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.