Madhuri Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10667 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Madhuri Devi, Wife of Sri Saroj Kumar, Resident of Village- Narauli, P.O.- Lound, P.S.:- Sirdalla, District- Nawada, Pin- 805123. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, 'Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan' Bailey Road, Patna- 15. 2.

The Engineer-in-Chief, Building Construction Department, 'Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan' Bailey Road, Patna- 15.

3. The Chief Engineer (South), Building Construction Department, 'Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan' Bailey Road, Patna- 15.

4. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Circle, Gaya.

5. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Nawada Building Division, Nawada.

6. The District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Nawada. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Sahay, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha For the State : Mr. Mahendra Pd. Verma, AC to SC20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In the present case petitioner has claimed for payment of Rs. 7,19,192/-. He has also made a prayer to return the security money.

As per direction of the Executive Engineer petitioner has constructed temporary strong room for the purposes of keeping election materials during PACS Election, 2014 and in view of the direction the petitioner has constructed the

Patna High Court CWJC No.10667 of 2017 (2) dt.12-10-2017 strong room. The work value was Rs. 7,19,192 and even after execution of the work the payment has not been made to the petitioner.

In such view of the matter, petitioner is directed to file an application before the District Magistrate, Nawada who will consider the case of the petitioner and take decision in accordance with law and will make payment of admitted dues within a period of three months from the date of filing of the application. If the District Magistrate is not agreeable to the claim of the petitioner, he will be obliged to give notice to the petitioner and after hearing he will pass a reasoned order. This Court also directs the respondent to return the security money, if any, within the same period. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition is disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- U