Brijnandan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12507 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.

Brijnandan Prasad Son of Late Saryu Prasad Residen of Village-Pokhraha, P.S. Imamganj, District-Gaya.

2.

Kulendra Singh Son of Late Rameshwar Singh Resident of VillageSankarpur, P.S.Imamganj, District-Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Gaya.

3.

The District Programme Officer, Gaya.

4.

The Block Programme Officer, Imamganj, District-Gaya. 5.

The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Guriya, P.S. Imamganj, District-Gaya. 6.

The Rojgar Sewak, Gram Panchayat Guriya, P.S. Imamganj, District-Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Upadhyaya, AC to GP 7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 03-07-2026

1. The petitioners have filed the instant application for the following reliefs:

"(I) For a direction to the Respondents authorities for payment of MGNREGA dues as contained in Annexure1 which has been unnecessary withheld dues to non payment of illegal gratification of 40% against the balance demanded from the petitioner by the Mukhiya and

2/4 MGNREGA officials.

3. At the very outset, the Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, wherein the respondents have categorically admitted the liability to pay the outstanding amount to the petitioners. Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:

"6. That it would not be out of place to mention here that the petitioners have supplied the construction materials in 12 MGNREGA Schemes and from persual of the aforesaid MGNREGA MIS report, it is apparent that out of the said 12 MGNREGA Schemes, bills with respect to 08 schemes have already been paid to the petitioners and bill with respect to 04 schemes amounting to Rs. 10,87,795/- is due to them which has not been disbursed in their account due to technical error of the system. It may be noted that out of Rs. 10,87,795/-,

3/4 57,378/- remains due to petitioner no. 1 and remaining Rs. 10,30,417/- remain due to petitioner no.2, the details of the four schemes in which the amount is due to the petitioners showing in MGNREGA MIS report are annexed herewith."

4. From the aforesaid statement made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that the respondents have admitted that an amount of Rs. 57,378/- is payable to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 10,30,417/- is payable to petitioner No. 2. The only reason assigned for non-payment is a technical error in the system.

5. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioners cannot be denied their admitted dues on account of a technical problem in the respondents' system. The responsibility to make payment for the work done and materials supplied by the petitioners lies with the respondent authorities.

6. Since the respondents themselves have admitted the liability to pay the aforesaid amount, there is no reason to withhold the

4/4 payment any further.

7. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to pay the admitted dues of Rs. 57,378/- to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 10,30,417/- to petitioner No. 2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt or production of a certified copy of this order.

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.

9. Interlocutory Application, if any, shall stands disposed of.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) Spd/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 03.07.2026 Transmission Date