Allowed

Anupam Shrivastav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Apr 2025CWJC/4474/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's agency produced two Hindi and Bhojpuri-dubbed video clips for voter awareness during the 2020 Bihar Assembly elections under a work order. Authorities paid only half the bill treating the clips as short telefilms. The Court held the 120-second clips fell within the video spot rate category, and the approval letter accepted them as video spots, so denial of full payment was unjustified

What did the court decide?

Payment of balance amount due per the petitioner's invoices directed to be made within four weeks.

Anupam Shrivastav Vs The State of Bihar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4474 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Anupam Shrivastav Son of Late Shri Bireshwar Shrivastav, Proprietor of Icon Communications, addressed at 101, Block - II, Qutab View Apartments, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi – 110016

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Election Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

Additional Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Election Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

Joint Chief Electoral Officer-cum-Joint Secretary, Bihar Election Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anupam Shrivastava (in person) For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (28) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER

¶11

11 21-04-2025 Heard the parties.

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed for the following

¶13

relief(s) :

¶14

i. Fer issuance of appropriate writs(s) in the nature of certiorari or any other writ in similar nature for quashing the letter no. 2472 dated 13.07.2021 as also letter no. 1623 dated 09.04.2021 both issued under the signature of Respondent no. 3 whereby and where under he has been pleased to reject the claim of the petitioner for full payment of work done by him in consonance with the work order dated 04.09.2020 as also the approval letter dated 19.11.2020.

¶15

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ in similar nature, commanding and

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.4474 of 2024(11) dt.21-04-2025 2/8

¶17

directing the Respondent Commission to make full payment to the petitioner for his work in conformity with the work order and approval letter concerning the said work after deducting/adjusting payments which have been paid earlier.

¶18

iii. For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for which the petitioner is entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the proprietor of Icon Communications which is in the business of producing small films/jingles etc. That the petitioner company was selected for production of the video spots and given the work order dated 04.09.2020. As per the terms, conditions and requirements of the work order the petitioner agency was entrusted with the job of making two video spots of Hindi version in HD Format and its dubbed version in Bhojpuri. That the work was to be completed by the petitioner as per the specifications in the work order. After the completion of the work the petitioner had submitted the video spots and the same was approved by the Respondent-Authorities, communicated to the petitioner vide Letter No. 7182 dated 19.11.2020 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter the petitioner has submitted separate bills for the work done for a total amount of Rs.26,66,800/-. However the petitioner received half of the total payment due, the authorities under the pretext that the video clips submitted by the petitioner was not video spots but short telefilms have only paid half of the bill amount. The petitioner has stated

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.4474 of 2024(11) dt.21-04-2025 3/8

¶21

that though he has objected to the same, the authorities have till date not pay any heed to the same. That in spite of several reminders the authorities are not paying the full bill amount. The petitioner has stated having completed the work as per the specifications given in the work order and submitted the bills the authorities cannot unilaterally take a decision that video clips submitted by the petitioner fall under the category of short telefilms and pay the half the bill amounts raised by the petitioner. The party in person has prayed for allowing the present Writ Petition directing the authorities to pay the full amount for the work done.

¶22

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel has stated that the film clips submitted by the petitioner come under the category of short films and not video spots as claimed by the petitioner. Learned counsel has stated that the work was entrusted to various agencies and all the bills were paid under the head of short films only and not video spots. That there is no objection from other agencies who have being entrusted with similar work and it is only the petitioner who is raising the objections without any right. Counsel has stated that the terms and conditions of the work order issued to the petitioner makes it amply clear that the video clips submitted by the petitioner come under the category of short films and not video spots. Further it is stated that the duration as to whether the video clips submitted by the petitioner comes under the category of video spots or short films are all disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Hon’ble

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.4474 of 2024(11) dt.21-04-2025 4/8

¶24

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has stated that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate the matter and the petitioner should be relegated to a proper forum for ventilating his grievances. Learned counsel for the Respondents has prayed for dismissing the present Writ Petition and relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 16 SCC, 818 (Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vrs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Anr.) .

¶25

Admittedly in this particular case there is no dispute that the petitioner has been selected as one of the agencies for the purposes of creating a video clip for creating awareness for the Bihar Legislative Assembly Election, 2020. There is no dispute that the petitioner has not completed the work or that the clips submitted by the petitioner were not up to the mark or as per the specifications issued by the Respondents. The only dispute in this particular case as culled out from the pleadings and the materials available on record is as to whether the video clips submitted by the petitioner fall under the category of video spots or short films. In order to resolve the issue it is pertinent to extract the portion of the work order more particularly the nomenclature and the specifications issued by the authorities :

¶26

RATE CARD FOR AUDIO-VIDEO PRODUCTIONS (2012-15) DIRECTORATE OF ADVERTISING & VISUAL PUBLICITY M/O INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING SOOCHNA BHAVAN, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI

¶27

1)…………… 2)…………… 3)……………

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.4474 of 2024(11) dt.21-04-2025

5/8

4)……………

5)……………

6)……………

7)……………

Video Spot/Documentaries/Telefilms : The consolidate rate of video Spot/Jingle/Documentaries/Telefilms are as given below, shkot on Digi Beta or DV Cam:

¶35

Duration	Master	Dubbing	Language Version	HD Format	Re- voiceover	Re-shooting charges	Re-editing Charges	35/16 mm film
Video Spot
Upto 60 Seconds	Rs.3,50,000	Rs.20,000	Rs.2,50,000	50 percent more than the respective master/ Language rate	Rs.10,000	Rs.35,000	Rs.15,000	100% more than the respective master/ Language rate
Above 60 Seconds to 120 Seconds	Pro-rata	Pro-rata	Pro-rata	50 percent more than the respective master/ Language rate	Pro-rata	Pro-rata	Pro-rata	100% more than the respective master/ Language rate
Documentaries/ Spots Telefilms
From 2 to 5 mts	Rs.3,50,000	Rs.35,000	Rs.1,75,000	50 percent more than the respective master/ Language rate	Rs.10,000	Rs.25,000	Rs.15,000	100% more than the respective master/ Language rate
Above 5 to 15 mts	Rs.4,50,000	Rs.45,000	Rs.2,25,000	50 percent more than the respective master/ Language rate	Rs.12,000	Rs.30,000	Rs.18,000	100% more than the respective master/ Language rate
Above 15 to 30 mts	Rs.5,50,000	Rs.50,000	Rs.2,50,000	50 percent more than the respective master/ Language rate	Rs.15,000	Rs.35,000	Rs.21,000	100% more than the respective master/ Language rate
Above 30 mts	Pro-rata, based on 30 minute rate	Pro-rata, based on 30 minute rate	Pro-rata, based on 30 minute rate	50 percent more than the respective master/ Language rate	Pro-rata, based on 30 minute rate	Pro-rata, based on 30 minute rate	Pro-rata, based on 30 minute rate	100% more than the respective master/ Language rate

9)…………..

10)…………

11)…………

12)…………

13)…………. 14)…………. 15)………….

¶41

Patna High Court CWJC No.4474 of 2024(11) dt.21-04-2025 6/8

¶42

A perusal of the above reveals that for video spots which are up to 60 seconds a particular rate is fixed and the video spots which are above 60 seconds and up to 120 seconds the pro rata rate is fixed. That in so far as the documentary and telefilms are concerned the duration of the same is between 2 to 5 minutes for which different rates are fixed as evident from the table. Admittedly, in the present case the video clips submitted by the petitioner is of 120 seconds duration only therefore the contention of the respondents that the same comes under the category of short telefilms is without any legal basis. The authorities having entered into the contract with the petitioner and the accepted work done by the petitioner cannot take a “U” turn and claim that the video spots submitted by the petitioner fall under the category of short film and denying him full payment. Further it is to be noted that the Election Department of the Government of Bihar vide Letter No. 7182 dated 19.11.2020 has written to the petitioner accepting that the petitioner has submitted the video spots. That it is necessary to extract the contents of Annexure P/3 :

¶43

bZ&esy बबहारसरकार

¶44

Qksu ua0 %&0612&2217352 QSDl ua0 %&0612&2215611 bZ&esy%&[email protected]

¶45

मुखयबनरारचनपदाबधकारी, बबहारकाकायारलय lgt] lqxe] lqjf{kr ernku 7. सरदारपटेलमागर (eSaxYl jksM), पटना

¶46

i=kad%& एस०१-1-4/2018 ([kaM)- 7182 पटना, बदनांक 19 नरमबर 2020 ई०।

¶47

izs"kd]

¶48

बमबथलेशकुमारसाहु संयुकतसबचर-सहसंयुकतमुखयबनरारचनपदाबधकारीबबहार।

¶49

Patna High Court CWJC No.4474 of 2024(11) dt.21-04-2025 7/8

¶50

lsok esa]

¶51

ICON Communication, 101, Qutab View Apartments Tower-11,

¶52

6 Floor, Shaheed Jeet Sing Marg, New Delhi-110016 Mob-9350581200([email protected])

¶53

बरषय :- Video Spot सरीकृतबकयेजानेकेसंबंधमे।

¶54

izlax%& बरभागीयपत्रांक-2987 बदनांक 04.09.2020

¶55

महाशय,

¶56

उपयुरकतबरषयक izklafxd i= केआलोकमेबबहारबरधानसभाआमबनरारचन, 2020

¶57

मतदाताजागरकताकेबलये SVEEP Division भारतबनरारचनआयोगदाराअनुमोदनएरंबरभागीय

¶58

सबमबतदाराअंबतमपरीकणकेउपरांतआपकीएजेसीदारातैयारबकयेगयेबनमनबलबखतरीबडयोसपॉट

¶59

कोअंबतमरपसेसरीकृतबकयाजाताहैः-

¶60

	बरररण	समयअरबध	अभयुबकत
1.	e-Vigal Video Spot	120सेकेड	भोजपुरीएरंमैबथली
			Dubbingसरीकृत
2.	PwD Ad Spot	120सेकेड	भोजपुरीएरंमैबथली
			Dubbingसरीकृत

¶61

उकतसरीकृतरीबडयोसपॉट Vetting तथातकनीकीरगुणातमकपरीकणमे SVEEP

¶62

Division भारतबनरारचनआयोगएरंबरभागीयसबमबतदाराउपयुकतपायेगयेहै।

¶63

उललेखनीयहैबकसरीकृतबकयेगयेरीबडयोसपॉटकेअबतबरकतबकसीअनयरीबडयोको सरीकृतकरभुगतानकरनेहेतुआपकेदाराप्रसतुतबकसीभीप्रसतारपरअबबरचारनहींबकयाजायेगा।

¶64

सरीकृतबकयेगयेरीबडयोसपॉटकाभुगतानआपकेदाराप्रसतुत Invoice केपरीकणके उपरांतबरभागीयपत्रांक-2987 बदनांक 04.09.2020 केआलोकमेबदयेगयेकायारदेशमेउललेबखतशतोरं केअधीनबकयाजायेगा।

¶65

बरशरासभाजन

¶66

The above letter makes it clear that the video clips submitted by

¶67

the petitioner were accepted as video spot.

¶68

Patna High Court CWJC No.4474 of 2024(11) dt.21-04-2025 8/8

¶69

Though the counsel for the Respondents has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 16 SCC, 818

¶70

(Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vrs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Anr.) the same is not applicable to the facts of the present Writ Petition and is distinguishable and therefore of no help.

¶71

Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances the present Writ Petition is allowed . The authorities are directed to make the payment of balance amount due as per the invoice submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶72

With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed.

¶73

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)

¶74

Shamshad/-

¶75

Anupam Shrivastav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anupam Shrivastav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Babulal Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Dinesh Prasad Singh Vidyarthi Vs The State of Bihar

Alok Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Alok Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Sendoz Impex Limited Vs The Union of India