Allowed

M/s Magadh Construction v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. and Ors.

Patna HC17 Jul 2014CWJC/11994/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ application, the petitioner sought a direction for payment of Rs. 1,17,245/- for work done under a valid work order. Since there was no opposition and the payment was admitted, the court directed the respondents to pay the amount within three months, mandating reasons for rejection if applicable.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to pay the admitted amount of Rs. 1,17,245/- within three months.

M/s Magadh Construction Vs The Bihar State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11994 of 2014

¶2

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

¶3

M/s Magadh Construction through its Proprietor namely Jagdish Jha, aged about 60 years s/o Late Sundar Jha, R/o Mohalla-Koeribari, P.S. Civil Lines District-Gaya-823001, Bihar.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited through its Chief-cumManaging Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2.The Managing Director, South Bihar Power Holding Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶7

3.Managing Director, North Bihar Power Holding Company, Bihar State Power Holding Corporation, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4.The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer(B.S.P.H.C.L.), Gaya.

¶8

5.The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Supply, Gaya.

¶9

6.The Financial Controller, Bihar State Power Holding Company, Gaya.

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Adv with Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : None.

¶13

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

¶14

2 17-07-2014 In this writ application the petitioner has prayed

¶15

for the following relief:-

¶16

“For issuance of order, direction or writ of Mandamus for directing the respondents to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,17,245/- for the work done by the petitioner firm against the work order bearing ESE, Gaya W/O No.3509 dated 30.12.08 in pursuance of which the petitioner was allotted work for construction/rehabilitation of H.T./L.T. Lines and D/S/S for rehabilitation/electrification of villages under R.I. plan.

¶17

For issuance of order, direction or writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ for directing the respondents to pay interest over the aforesaid amount for delay in payment despite completion of work to the full satisfaction of the respondent authorities within the stipulated time.”

¶18

There is no dispute that the petitioner had

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.11994 of 2014 (2) dt.17-07-2014

¶20

¶21

performed the work under a valid work order of the authorities of Bihar State Electricity Board.

¶22

From the communication of the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Magadh Electric Supply Area, Gaya dated 03.08.2009, it also transpires that the said authority had sought for release/diversion of fund from the Apex Board and therefore, there would be hardly any scope for even understanding that there was any dispute as with regard to the admitted payment of Rs. 1,17,245/-

¶23

No one has appeared on behalf of respondents to oppose the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶24

That being so, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that the admitted amount of the petitioner must be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶25

It also goes without saying that if for any reason whatsoever the amount is not found payable, reasons thereof should also be communicated to the petitioner

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.11994 of 2014 (2) dt.17-07-2014

¶27

¶28

within the aforesaid period of three months.

¶29

With the aforementioned observations and

¶30

direction, this application is disposed of.

¶31

Ranjan/-
U

¶32

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

M/s Magadh Construction v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Magadh Construction v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. 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

Mithlesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Sunil Das Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Satyam Alok Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Madhukaran Prasad Vs The State Bank Of India and Ors.

Aditya Tele Infra and Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.