Petitioner challenged non-payment of bills for works executed by Nagar Parishad. Court directed Respondent No.6 to examine claim and decide within 30 days without adjudicating merit.
Respondent No.6 to look into the grievance and decide on payment or otherwise within 30 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4973 of 2019
======================================================
Saurabh Kumar Son of Amar Kumar Mishra, Resident of Village Purani Thakurbari, P.S. Banka, District- Banka.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
... ... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shiwesh Chandra Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Subhash Prasad Singh (Ga3) ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
2 29-07-2019 Petitioner in this case is aggrieved by in action on
the part of the respondent no. 6 is not taking any action towards settlement of the bills for the work rendered so far by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the Junior Engineer, Banka prepared the bill after verification of works of the petitioner and the Executive Engineer has also approved the same. Half of the works were already completed but despite such approvals up-to the stage of Executive Engineer, the respondent no. 6 has not made payment of the bill amount.
Learned counsel for the State is present, however, it is
Patna High Court CWJC No.4973 of 2019(2) dt.29-07-2019 2/2
submitted that the matter relates to Nagar Parishad, Banka.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent no. 6 is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner as contained in letter dated 05.01.2019 (Annexure ‘4’) to the writ application and consider the same on the basis of the materials available on the record. If the bills of the petitioner are found payable, the same must be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order but in case the respondent no. 6 is of the view that the bills are not payable for any reason, he would communicate the reason thereof to the petitioner and the petitioner will be at liberty to seek his remedy in accordance with law. Let it be made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the claim and it is left open for the respondent no. 6 to take appropriate view of the matter and a decision thereon in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
This writ application stands disposed off accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
vats/ved
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority must settle the pending bills for work rendered by the petitioner.
Whether the writ court is empowered to direct the authority to examine the claim of unpaid bills.
Saurabh Kumar
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikash and Awas Department, Bihar, Patna
The Chief Engineer, Nagar Vikash and Awas Department, Bihar, Patna
The Superintending Engineer, Nagar Vikash and Awas Department, Bihar, Patna
The Executive Engineer, Shahri Vikas Abhikaran, Banka
Sub Divisional Cum Administrator, Nagar Parishad, Banka
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
