Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14890 of 2017 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar Son of Sri Lalan Prasad, Resident of Shastri Nagar Nawada, P.O. P.S.District-Nawada BIhar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Principle Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, patna. 3.

The Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, patna. 4.

THe Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Gaya 5.

The Executive Engineer, Nalkup, Divisional, Nawada. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sitaram Yadaw-GP-16 Mr. Jitendra Kr. AC to GP-16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER 25-06-2025

1. The writ petition has been filed to command the respondents to pay the amount agreed upon between the parties for the work executed by the petitioner. Further for a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation at the earliest.

2. The brief facts, as culled from the writ petition are that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Mahadevan Construction. On 26.08.2012, the Executive Engineer, Nalkup Pramandal, Nawada, invited tenders for repair work of the nala in

Patna High Court CWJC No.14890 of 2017(2) dt.25-06-2025 2/3 Paingari and Chiraiyya. The petitioner was awarded the tender and allotted the work, pursuant to which an agreement was executed.

3. The petitioner completed the work to the satisfaction of the respondents and submitted the bill amounting to Rs. 3,33,729.00. A cheque bearing No. BB294497 dated 13.02.2013 was issued in favour of the Mahadevan Construction under the signature of Executive Engineer for the work done by the petitioner.

4. However, due to some technical error, the amount was not disbursed through the treasury. The petitioner informed the Executive Engineer accordingly. Despite several applications and representations made by the petitioner, the cheque amount remained unpaid. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by Respondent No. 5, admitting the facts of the Writ petition that the initial cheque amount could not be encashed due to some technical reasons. The counter affidavit further disclose that during the

Patna High Court CWJC No.14890 of 2017(2) dt.25-06-2025 3/3 pendency of the Writ petition, a Cheque has been issued by the department bearing Cheque No. 586703 dated 14.03.2018, as the payment was made to the petitioner as the relief sought by the petitioner has been redressed. Therefore, nothing remains in the Writ petition for further adjudication.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ petitions is dismissed as it is devoid of merits. (G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) Manish/- U