Disposed

Vijay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC18 Jul 2014CWJC/8926/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ jurisdiction case, the petitioner, a contractor, sought direction for payment of ₹1,24,082 for completed repair work. The Court noted non-availability of funds was not a valid ground for non-payment of completed work satisfying quality standards and directed payment within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to pay the admissible amount to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Vijay 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.8926 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Vijay Kumar S/O Awadh Kishore Singh R/O Mohalla- Atardah, P.S.Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

.... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Department Of P.W.D., Government Of Bihar 2. The Chief Engineer Building Construction Division, P.W.D., Muzaffarpur 3. The Superintending Engineer Building Construction Division, P.W.D., Muzaffarpur 4. The Executive Engineer Building Construction Division, P.W.D., Muzaffarpur 5. The Assistant Engineer Building Construction Division, P.W.D., Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan For the Respondent/s : Mr. R.K.Jha, GP18

¶4

.... .... Respondents

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads

¶8

as follows:

¶9

“That this writ application is being filed for the issuance of direction to the respondent authority most particularly to the respondent no.3 to make payment of Rupees 1,24,082 Rupees Principal amount alongwith commercial rate of interest on account of work done by the petitioner as contractor in the premises of S.K.M.C.H. Muzaffarpur “NUTAN CHATRAVAS” in response to the invitation of tender for necessary repairing and colour work etc of the S.K.M.C.H. Muzaffarpur “NUTAN CHATRAVAS” in year 2011-2012.”

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.8926 of 2013 (2) dt.18-07-2014

¶11

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute either with regard to quality or performance in the work of the petitioner which he had completed upon grant of contract to him. He has further referred to paragraphs no.7 and 11 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:

¶13

“7.That with regard to the averment made in paragraph no.2(ii) of the writ petition respondents humbly submit that the respondent no.4 all has already sent relevant document to Superintending Engineer Building Circle, Muzaffarpur for approval from liability. After sanction of liability committee and availability of fund the payment will be made to petitioner immediately.”

¶14

“11.That with regard to the averment made in paragraph no.6 of the writ petition respondents humbly submit that payment has not been made to the petitioner due to non availability of fund and sent to Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Muzaffarpur for approval of liability committee.”

¶15

Thus from the counter affidavit itself, this much becomes

¶16

more than clear that there is no dispute with regard to quality of work completed by the petitioner. In fact the payment has not been made to the petitioner only on account of non-availability of fund which however can not be a valid ground for denial of payment of

¶17

work done by him pursuant to a valid agreement and consequential work order. If a contractor was awarded the work

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.8926 of 2013 (2) dt.18-07-2014

¶19

¶20

and has also completed the work to the satisfaction of all concern he cannot be in the matter of payment left to the mercy of the authorities.

¶21

Considering all these aspects this Court would direct the concerned respondents to ensure that whatever amount is found admissible and payable to the petitioner must be paid to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶22

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

¶23

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶24

surendra/-

¶25

Vijay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay 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

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.

Rampriya Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Vishwa Construction Company Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.