Rabindra Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.984 of 2015 (4) dt.03-08-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.984 of 2015 ====================================================== Rabindra Kumar Singh son of Late Baijnath Singh resident of Village - Sedhan, Police Station - Tarari, District - Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Sasaram, Rohtas.

3. The Executive Engineer, Building Division, Sasaram, Rohtas.

4. The Assistant Engineer, Building Division, Sasaram, Rohtas.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Building Sub-Division, Sasaram, Rohtas.

6. The Junior Engineer, Building Construction Department, Sasaram, Rohtas.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : M/s Binita Singh, G.P. 31 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 03-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents for making payment of the petitioner's bill amounting to Rs. 1,57,353/- remaining unpaid after a considerable lapse of time, together with compound interest thereon with compensation and litigation cost.

3. It appears that a work order was issued in favour of the petitioner by notification of a tender invitation notice for construction of Health Sub-Centre at Karanhansi (Dinara), which was duly completed by him as per contract. However,

Patna High Court CWJC No.984 of 2015 (4) dt.03-08-2015 despite the completion of the works to the satisfaction of the respondents, the amount of bill of Rs. 1,57,353/- was not paid to the petitioner for which he approached the concerned authorities.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard despite opportunity being granted no counter affidavit has however been filed.

5. Be that as it may, it would appear that the prayer of the writ petitioner involves a mere money claim for which there is adequate statutory remedy provided under the law.

6. As such, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum/ authorities for pressing his claim in this regard. (Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/- U