Allowed

Rampriya Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC18 Jul 2014CWJC/12156/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna issued a writ of mandamus directing municipal authorities to pay admitted dues to a contractor within three months, rejecting the objection of fund paucity against an executed work order and requiring reasons for any undisputed amounts.薄的

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay admissible amount within three months and communicate reasons for any undisputed amount within the same period.

Rampriya Singh 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.12156 of 2014

¶2

====================================================== Rampriya Singh, aged about 60 years son of late Manoj Kumar Singh, resident of Mohalla Rajendra Nagar, Road No.10E, Block No.32, Flat No.242, P.S. Rajendra Nagar, Patna

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶6

Commissioner cum Administrator, Patna Municip Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna 1

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, Patna Municip Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna 1

¶8

Chief Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna Municip Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna 1

¶9

Executive Engineer, Kankarbagh Division, Budh Marg, Patna 1

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. N.K. Singh, G.P.26

¶13

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

¶14

2 18-07-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads

¶16

as follows:

¶17

“(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.1,75,000 for ward no.45 from Mahatma Nagar and link road etc. vide its tender no. 21/F/2010 (ii) 1,37,800/- for ward no.45 Vijay Nagar, F Sector, Link Road etc. vide tender no.22/F/2010 and (iii) Rs.59,000/- for ward no.46 Janta Flat etc. and 55 vide its tender no.23/F/2010 total Rs.3,69,300/- (Rupees three Lacs sixty nine thousand and three hundred only) under Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna for repaiting of the

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.12156 of 2014 (2) dt.18-07-2014

¶19

¶20

main hole/ catch pit vide its tender no.20/F/2010 which was done by the petitioner and also directing the respondent to make payment the aforesaid dues with 12% compound interest because the work was done as per instruction, same was examined and bills were also prepared but till date payment is not being made without assigning any reasons.”

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.12156 of 2014 (2) dt.18-07-2014

¶24

¶25

months.

¶26

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this

¶27

application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/U

Rampriya Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampriya 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

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

Satyam Alok Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Madhukaran Prasad Vs The State Bank Of India and Ors.

Vish Nath Sharma @ Vishwa Nath Sharma and Ors. Vs The Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vishwa Construction Company Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.