Md. Saub Khan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14807 of 2013 ====================================================== Md. Saub Khan S/O Md. Late Saki Khan Resident Of Village Kalana, P.SGuruwa, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.

3. The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Gaya.

4. The Deputy Development Officer, Gaya.

5. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya.

6. The Block Development Officer, Guruwa, Gaya.

7. The Executive Engineer, N.R.E.T. Gaya.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shashi Bhushan Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Vinay Kriti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 96,000.00 with interest thereon in connection with the contract work namely construction of road from Kolona Pahari to Kolona High Surface Road Part II in the scheme No. 6/96-97 under Guruwa Block of Gaya District.

It is the case of the petitioner that he had completed the total work and in terms of the sanction he was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,67,177.00. After measurement, a sum of Rs. 2,46,239.00 was allegedly found payable to the petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.14807 of 2013 dt.02-01-2019 2/3 It is submitted that the petitioner was thereafter paid a sum of Rs. 1,62,111.00 and the remaining amount of approximately Rs. 96,000.00 was withheld by the then Block Development Officer, Guruwa, Gaya.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was making repeated representations before the District Magistrate, Gaya for getting such payments but despite the letter written by the District Magistrate, Gaya to the Director, D.R.D.A. Gaya and then after a recommendation was made for payment, no payment was made to the petitioner as yet.

Learned counsel representing the State submits that the present writ application is not fit to be entertained as it is for pure and simple money claim. It is submitted that on perusal of the writ application it would appear that the contract in question relates to the period 1996-97, and, according to the petitioner, he was entitled to get the amount in the year 1999 itself. It is submitted that this writ application has been filed after about 14 years since the year 1999.

Learned counsel submits that remedies under the common law has become barred by limitation for the petitioner, by filing this writ application, the petitioner is only trying to raise a

Patna High Court CWJC No.14807 of 2013 dt.02-01-2019 3/3 stale claim. It is submitted that the writ application may be dismissed on this ground alone.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State and on perusal of the records, this court finds that the contention of learned counsel representing the State has got much force. The contract in question was entered into in the year 1996-97 and even Annexure-3, which is a letter said to have been written by the Director, Accounts Administration and Self-Employment, District Rural Development Authority, Gaya to the District Officer, Gaya, is dated 29th September, 2001. It appears that there had been certain issues with regard to the payment. This writ application has been preferred in the year 2013 i.e. after delay of almost 14 years and at this stage this court is not willing to entertain the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for pure and simple money claim.

This writ application has, thus, no merit. It is dismissed, accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 03.01.2019 Transmission Date