Sadan Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9781 of 2018 ====================================================== Sadan Kumar Singh Son of late Ram Kumar Singh, Resident of VillageRajopatti, Police Station and District-Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary to the Government Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Chief Engineer-IV, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.
The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Muzaffarpur.
4.
The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
None For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Archana Meenakshee- GP-6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 24-03-2023 None appears for the petitioner.
2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for grant of following reliefs to the petitioner:
(i) For quashing of the order as
2/5 contained in letter No.1914 dated 3.01.2018 issued under the signature of Executive Engineer. Rural Works Department (hereinafter to be referred as RWD), Works Division, Sitamarhi whereby referring to some inspection report No.424/14-15 of the Account General Bihar, he has held that Rs.67,44,664.00 is recoverable from the petitioner and deducting the security deposit of Rs.8,72,631.00 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,87,203.00 either in cash or through bank draft at the earliest.
(ii) For holding that the decision fixing liability of such large amount of Rs. 57,44,664.00 without involving the petitioner in any inspection said to have been held by the Accountant General Bihar or any enquiry and affording opportunity to the petitioner to contest any such fact against him and the finding thereof is bad and not sustainable in the eye of law.
(iii) For holding that no amount can be recovered from the petitioner without assigning reason for such recovery and without affording opportunity to the petitioner to contest any allegation leading to recovery of such large amount.
(iv) For holding that no letter or order of the Department show that the petitioner was ever directed or has been intimated to participate in any enquiry regarding completion/ non-completion, quality and performance of work of the contract on construction of road under contract vide package No. BR-33R-0921 or BR-33R- 009.
(v) For holding that the entire exercise of fixing liability on the petitioner
3/5 for recovery of aforesaid amount is thoroughly illegal, arbitrary and malafide.
(vi) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be deemed entitled to."
Annexure-1 reads as under:- "
कारपालकअभभरंताकाकारारलर गग्राममीण कारभवभाग , कार प्रमंडल , सीतामढ़ी। पतत्रांक 1914 ददिनत्रांक 3/01/18/ प्रप्रेषककारपालकअभभरंता, गग्राममीण कग्रार्य दविभग्राग, कग्रार्य प्रमंडल, सीतामढ़ी सेवामे, शमी सदिन ककमग्रार दसमंह, गग्राम-रग्राजजोपटमी, दजलग्रा-समीतग्रामढमी। दविषर:-अरदररग्रा सप्रे इन्दिविग्रा - II ( BR-33R-09) एकरग्रारनग्रामग्रा समंख्रग्रा-102SBD / 2009-10, अन्तगर्यत विसूलनमीर रग्रादशि 6744664 कप्रे समंबमंध में। महग्राशिर आप कप्रे कग्रार्य पर महग्रालप्रेखग्राकग्रार दबहग्रार कप्रे दनरमीक्षण प्रदतविप्रेदिन समंख्रग्रा- 424 / 14-15 खमंड -(ख) कप्रे कमंदडकग्रा 4 (ii) कप्रे तहत 6744664.00 रूपरप्रे आप सप्रे विसकलनमीर ह दजसमें सप्रे जमग्रानत कमी रग्रादशि 872631.00 जब्त ह एविमं अविशिप्रेष रग्रादशि 5872033.00 रुपरप्रे ककपरग्रा अधजोहस्तग्राक्षरमी कग्रारर्यालर में नकदि अथविग्रा बैंक डग्राफ्ट कप्रे मग्राध्रम सप्रे जजो अधजोहस्तग्राक्षरमी कप्रे पदिनग्राम सप्रे भकगतप्रेर हजो शिमीघ्र जमग्रा करमें।
4/5 दविशग्रासभग्राजन कग्रार्यपग्रालक अदभरमंतग्रा गग्राममीण कग्रार्य दविभग्राग, कग्रार्य प्रमंडल, समीतग्रामढमी।"
3. Perusal of the records it is evident that the petitioner has not been heard in the matter before impugned action is taken.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent resisted the aforesaid version stating that show cause notice was issued and he had not replied. However, it is not reflected in Annexure-1 cited (supra). Therefore, one has to draw inference that there is no show cause notice and reply has been considered. Even assuming that show cause notice was issued in the event of nonfiling of reply, the same is not reflected in the impugned communication. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case. Hence, Annexure-1 dated 03.01.2018 stands set aside.
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. Reserving liberty to the concerned authority to issue a detailed show cause notice and on receipt of petitioner's reply, if any, proceed to pass detailed speaking order. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the
5/5 date of receipt of this order.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Arun Kumar Jha, J) rakhi/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 28.03.2023 Transmission Date N.A.