Dismissed¶36

Priyanka Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC8 May 2025CWJC/11204/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC CWJC 11204/2017, decided 08-05-2025, G. Anupama Chakravarthy J: contractor's writ for Rs. 3,00,000/- plus statutory interest under tender notice 78/2016-17 (PMCH compounder quarter work) dismissed as not maintainable; disputed questions of fact; no contract agreement filed; alternative remedy under Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act/Rules 2008; liberty granted to approach appropriate forum; limitation to be liberally considered by tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to avail her remedy before the appropriate forum; any limitation objection before the tribunal to be liberally considered since she approached this Court within the stipulated period. ¶36

Priyanka Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court, or whether the petitioner must resort to the remedy of invoking the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Tribunal under the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act/Rules 2008. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Non-payment of the amount is a disputed question of fact, and such questions of fact cannot be decided by the writ Court.

¶31-33

Ratio / Principle

On the entire material on record, no agreement was filed by the petitioner to prove that the tender was allotted to her to execute the work.

¶28-29

Key takeaways

The writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits.ratio¶33-34
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail her remedy before the appropriate forum.ratio¶36
In case of limitation, the tribunal shall liberally consider the same, as the petitioner approached this Court within the stipulated period of time.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWJC No.11204 of 2017, Patna High Court, decided 08-05-2025 by G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.) seeking a direction to the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Patna to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- with statutory interest for work allegedly executed under tender notice no. 78/2016-17 (S/R of compounder quarter no. 8, PMCH campus, Patna) DISMISSED. Held: (i) no contract agreement was filed by the petitioner to prove that the tender was allotted to her; (ii) non-payment is a disputed question of fact which the writ Court cannot decide, particularly as the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act/Rules 2008 provides an alternative remedy that was not availed; the writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed as devoid of merits, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, and any plea of limitation before the tribunal to be liberally considered since she had approached this Court within the stipulated period.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11204 of 2017

¶2

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

¶3

Priyanka Devi W/o Shrawan Kumar resident of Mohalla - Ashok Nagar, Road No. 7-A, P.O. - Lohia Nagar, P.S. - Kankarbagh, District - Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, South Bihar Circle, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Patna Building Construction Division, Patna.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.K.K. Singh, AC to Gp22 ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 08-05-2025

¶14

The Writ petition is filed directing the

¶15

respondent no. 4 to pay the outstanding dues i.e.

¶16

Rs. 3,00,000/-, with statutory interest to the petitioner, against the executed work with regard to tender notice no. 78/2016-17.

¶17

It is the specific contention of the

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner that the

¶19

petitioner being a woman/licensee contractor have

¶20

executed the works of S/R work of compounder

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.11204 of 2017(2) dt.08-05-2025 2/4

¶22

quarter no. 8 in the campus of PMCH, Patna for the financial year 2016-17 vide tender notification No. 78/2016-17 of Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. The Executive work estimated to an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and in the light of the aforesaid tender notification and as per the oral instructions made by the respondent authorities, the petitioner executed the work well within the time. The bills were prepared and submitted but the amount were not paid to the petitioners, being aggrieved the present Writ application is filed.

¶23

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the contesting respondent no. 4. The contents of counter affidavit disclose that the Writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act/Rules 2008. Further there is a provision for

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.11204 of 2017(2) dt.08-05-2025 3/4

¶25

invoking the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Tribunal and without availing that opportunity, the present Writ application was filed. It is also contended in the counter affidavit that no contract agreement is annexed with the Writ petition to prove that tender was awarded to the petitioner and pursuant to the

¶26

tender the petitioner executed the work.

¶27

Considering the entire material on

¶28

record, it is evident that no agreement has been filed by the petitioner to prove that tender was

¶29

allotted to her to execute the work.

¶30

However, it is the petitioner’s contention

¶31

that the amount was not paid, which is a disputed

¶32

fact. These all are questions of facts which cannot

¶33

be decided by this Court. The petitioner can avail her remedy before the appropriate forum. This Court is of the considerable view that the Writ

¶34

petition is not maintainable, and is accordingly

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.11204 of 2017(2) dt.08-05-2025 4/4

¶36

dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail her remedy before the appropriate forum. In case of limitation, the tribunal shall liberally consider the same as the petitioner has approach this Court within the stipulated period of time.

¶37

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

¶38

amitkr/-

¶39

Priyanka Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badri Kumar Mittal @ Badri Nath Mittal Vs The Food And Consumer Protection Department Through The Principal Secretary and Ors.

Badri Kumar Mittal @ Badri Nath Mittal Vs The Food And Consumer Protection Department Through The Principal Secretary and Ors.

Kiran Bala Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Raj Mohan Pathak Vs The Food And Consumer Protection Department Through The Principal Secretary and Ors.

Ram Suresh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ajeet Kumar @ Ajit Kumar Vs The Food And Consumer Protection Department Through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.