Disposed

Nagendra Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC26 Apr 2022CWJC/18585/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking payment of outstanding dues. After an initial order directed an enquiry due to a suspected false affidavit, the petitioner sought and was granted permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the concerned executive officer.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach Respondent No. 4 for grievance redressal.

Nagendra Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18585 of 2021

¶2

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

¶3

Nagendra Prasad Singh Son of Pahari Ray Resident of Village- Purani Pansapur, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna (Bihar).

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶7

The Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, South Bihar Circle, Punai Chak, Patna.

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Central

¶10

Division, Near High Court, Patna.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

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

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Uma Shankar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AG Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmad (SC 20)

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶16

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶17

4 26-04-2022 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

¶18

“(I) For issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay to the petitioner his admitted outstanding dues against the two works executed by him in pursuant to two Agreements with statutory interest on the dues amount from the date of cause of action till payment.

¶19

(II) For direction to the Respondents

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.18585 of 2021(4) dt.26-04-2022 2/5

¶21

to pay exemplary costs to the Petitioner forcing him to seek legal remedy for payment of admitted (undisputed) outstanding dues.

¶22

(III) Any other Order/ Orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶23

On 10^th of February, 2022, we had passed the

¶24

following order.

¶25

“ Prima facie, we are of the considered view that deponent of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4, namely, the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Central Division, Near High Court, Patna, has made a false averment.

¶26

We notice that the petition was filed only on 27.10.2021, thereafter it was registered and listed in the cause list. It is for the first time, matter is taken up by the Court. No request for early hearing of the petition was ever made and the petition is listed in its chronological order.

¶27

From the response filed by the State, we notice that it is one of those rare cases where respondent-State has filed its response annexing a document, which is extracted as under:

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.18585 of 2021(4) dt.26-04-2022 3/5

¶29

We have not issued any notice in the present petition. May be some direction was issued in a petition bearing CWJC No. 18581 of 2021, titled as Lalit Kumar Gupta Vs. Bank of India & Ors. , but then the petitioner does not claim to have filed the same.

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.18585 of 2021(4) dt.26-04-2022 4/5

¶31

In this view of the matter, we request the learned Advocate General to hold an enquiry in his office as to how such an affidavit could have been filed through the counsel, Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmad, learned S.C. 20.

¶32

We also direct the Respondent No. 2, namely, The Chief Engineer, Guilding Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan, Bailey Raod, Patna to hold an enquiry in his office as to under whose direction, the affidavit admitting the dues payable to the petitioner was filed on behalf of the State.

¶33

We are constrained to pass such an order, for we notice that in all other similar matters, the State is opposing the petitions on the ground of availability of equally efficacious remedy and the disputed nature of claims set out by the petitioner.

¶34

Affidavit of compliance be filed by the respondent no. 2.

¶35

Learned counsel undertakes to communicate the order to the said respondent.

¶36

Shri Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, learned counsel who regularly assists the learned Advocate General, is present through virtual mode, we request him to inform the learned Advocate General of the passing of the order.

¶37

List on 03.03.2022.”

¶38

Learned AG states that enquiry already stands

¶39

initiated and action taken against the erring officer/officials.

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.18585 of 2021(4) dt.26-04-2022 5/5

¶41

Hopefully, the proceedings will be completed within a period of three months from today.

¶42

After the matter was heard for some time, finding the Bench not to be in favour of the submissions made across the Bar, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition, reserving liberty to approach respondent No.4, namely The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Central Division, Near High Court, Patna, venting out his grievances.

¶43

Liberty granted.

¶44

We are sure as and when any such request is received, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months thereafter.

¶45

Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn, with the liberty aforesaid.

¶46

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶47

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

¶48

( S. Kumar, J)

¶49

K.C.Jha/-DKS

¶50

Nagendra Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar

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

Bihar Truck Owner Association Vs The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary

Ravish Kumar Vs The Union of India

Arvind Yadav Vs The Union of India

Suman Sharan Srivastava Vs The Union of India

M/s New Mithila Khadi Bhawan Vs The State of Bihar

Veer Bahadur Kumar Vs The State of Bihar