Pankaj Kumar Shahi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9637 of 2019 ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar Shahi aged about 42 years, S/o Umesh Prasad Shahi, Resident of Sahbajpur, P.S. Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Engineer in Chief, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

4.

The Executive Engineer, Building Division, Muzaffarpur. 5.

The Assistant Engineer, Building Sub-Division No.1, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raju Kumar Goswami, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sushil Kumar (GP22) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 04-06-2019 The petitioner in the present case claims that he is a registered contractor and had entered into a contract with respondent no. 4 on 20.01.2018 for washing, painting and cleaning on the eve of 26th January, 2018 in the campus of S.K.M.C.H. at Muzaffarpur for the year 2017-18 vide agreement No. 302 F2 of 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 99676/-.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that admitted bills amounting to Rs. 99676/- has not been paid despite the fact that he has completed the work and the bills have been submitted with the Executive Engineer, Building Division,

Patna High Court CWJC No.9637 of 2019(2) dt.04-06-2019 2/3 Muzaffarpur.

Learned counsel for the State submits that in the given facts and circumstances of the case it would be only just and proper if appropriate direction is issued to the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Muzaffarpur (respondent no. 4) to look into the grievance of the petitioner and in case it is found that the petitioner has worked pursuant to the agreement said to have been entered between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 and any money is admittedly payable to the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 may take appropriate steps towards payment. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, this court finds that instead of going into the merit of the claim, it would be just and proper to direct the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Muzaffarpur (respondent no.

4) to look into the grievance of the petitioner, examine the claim and in case it is found that the petitioner is entitled for the amount claimed by him or any part thereof, respondent no. 4 must pay the admitted amount to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9637 of 2019(2) dt.04-06-2019 3/3 part of the claim is denied, reasons thereof will be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. The writ application stands disposed of accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U