IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.53 of 2010 RAMESH SHANKAR PANDEY S/O RAM CHANDRA PANDEY R/O VILLAGE + POST- MATHURAPUR, P.S.- SHEOHAR, DISTT.- SHEOHAR. . . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. MR. BRAJESH MEHROTRA, COMMISSIONER-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. MR. RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, COMMISSIONER-CUM- PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. MR. SURESH PRASAD SINGH, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEOHAR. 5. MR. JAIRAM RAJAK, CHIEF ENGINEER (NORTH), BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA. 6. MR. NIRANJAN PRASAD SINGH, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR-(2) H.Q., SHEOHAR. . . . .Opposite Parties/Contemnors. ----------- 8/ 21.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The instant application has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for alleged wilful disobedience of order dated 02.09.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11144 of 2009. The petitioner Ramesh Kumar Pandey filed writ application for commanding the respondent authorities to ensure allotment of a total sum of Rs. 20,54,700/- in favour of respondent no.6 to ensure payment to the petitioner for the work done pursuant to agreement nos. 64 F 2/2006-07 and 63 F 2/2006-07. The work agreements in question related to construction of Anchal Guard Room and Compound wall in Anchal Office at Piprahi in the district of Sheohar against estimated cost of Rs. 10,21,649/-, as also construction of Guard Room and Compound wall in Anchal office at Sheohar against the estimated cost of Rs. 9,51.027/- under Rashtriya 2 Sam Vikas Yojna for countering Naxalism. The petitioner submits that he completed the work in right earnest, which stands admitted from the letter being no. 637 dated 22.09.2008 issued by the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Muzaffarpur-2, H.Q. at Sheohar, addressed to the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. He further submits that even the District Magistrate vide his letter no. 50 dated 20.07.2007 wrote to Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Planning and Development, Government of Bihar, Patna for allotment of a sum of Rs.10,62,900/- and 9,91,800/- towards payment of work executed by the petitioner of Guard room and Compound wall in Piprahi and Sheohar Anchal Office, pursuant to approval of the schemes by the State Steering Committee in its meeting dated 20.12.2006. In view of the aforesaid approval, he appointed Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Sheohar to carry out the work after inviting tender, as technical sanction was already obtained in this regard. The District Magistrate, Sheohar in his letter dated 05.09.2007 addressed to Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Planning and Development, Government of Bihar, Patna reiterated that the schemes in question finds mentioned in draft plan held on 20.12.2006, and as he did not receive any paper rejecting the schemes, he duly approved the same in view of security reasons in the area and appointed Executive Engineer for execution of the works. This Court in view of letter no. 50 dated 20.07.2007 3 observed that Commissioner-cum- Principal Secretary, Department of Planning and Development, Government of Bihar, Patna, who has been arrayed as opposite party no.3 in this Contempt application will take appropriate decision in this regard in view of letter of Collector, Sheohar preferably within a period of three months. The petitioner submits that pursuant to order dated 02.09.2009 passed by this Court, he submitted a detailed application to opposite party no.3 for making allotment and payment for admitted execution of works under Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojna. He submits that in spite of order of this Court, the opposite party no.3 has not taken any decision towards allotment of the fund, so that necessary payment could be made to the petitioner. A detailed show-cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.3. Paragraph 7 of the show-cause contains the procedure for sanction of schemes under the Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojna, which is quoted herein below: “That it is necessary to state here that Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojna is a centrally sponsored scheme. There is a defined procedure for sanctioning of schemes under this programme. As per guide lines issued by Planning Commission of India schemes proposed under this programme are put up before District Level committee. After approval of this Committee the integrated proposals are sent to the Planning & Development Department, Government of Bihar by the Collector for approval of State Level Steering Committee, which is constituted under the Chairmanship of Development Commissioner. The approval of state level committee is communicated to the Collectors concerned. On the basis of estimated 4 amount, administrative approval is accorded by competent authority (Collector / Divisional Commissioner / Administrative Department). The administrative approval is communicated by the office of the Collector to the Executive Engineer of the works division concerned. The first installment is released by the Collector simultaneously with the communication of administrative approval, After getting the sanction order and 1st installment from Collector, the Executive Engineer concerned executes the schemes through tender. The selection of the executing department at the district level for the execution of scheme is done by Collector. There is no role of the department of planning and development in selection of executing agency.” In paragraph no. 9 it has been stated that the District Collector in his letter no. 50/DP dated 20.07.2007 wrongly stated that construction of Guard Room and boundary wall in Anchal Compound of Piprahi and Sheohar, in the district of Sheohar was approved in State Level Steering Committee meeting dated 20.12.2006 and 02.07.2007. In fact, both the schemes were not approved by the State Level Steering Committee meeting and a communication to this effect was made to the District Collector vide letter no. 2670 dated 13.08.2007 and Departments letter no. 3189 dated 26.09.2007. Moreover, the aforesaid schemes were not permissible under the Rashtriya Sam Yojna. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the proceedings of meeting of State Level Steering Committee dated 20.12.2006 has been brought by way of Supplementary show-cause. 5 Counsel for the State submits only the schemes annexed to Schedule-1 to Clause 1, were approved. He submits that the aforesaid schedule does not contain the two schemes, which relate to construction of Guard Room and Boundary wall at Piprahi and Sheohar Anchal. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear from Clause Ka that all schemes related to welfare zones were approved. He further submits that in any view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for any departmental mistake or ambiguity. He further submits that Executive Engineer had issued advertisement pursuant to direction of the District Collector for construction of Guard Room for Counter Terrorist activity. The petitioner had put a hut sum of Rs. 20 lakhs in executing the work. The opposite parties now cannot back track. In contempt application, the scope of adjudication is limited and cause of action arises, if there is willful disobedience of direction of this Court. The direction contained in order dated 02.09.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11144 of 2009 is quoted herein below: “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court observes that the Secretary, respondent no.3, will take appropriate decision in this regard in the light of the Letter no. 50 dated 20.07.2007 within three months from today so that the necessary payment after due scrutiny of the work could be made in this respect”. The District Collector, Sheohar in his letters referred above 6 stated that the State Level Steering Committee has approved the projects in question. The opposite party no.3 by placing the proceeding of meeting dated 20.12.2006 states that on the contrary the State Level Steering Committee had disapproved the schemes. A copy of proceeding of State Level Steering Committee dated 20.12.2006 has been brought on record. Whether there is any ambiguity in recording of proceedings dated 20.12.2006 or whether the petitioner could be denied payment for error or mistake of instrumentalities of state cannot be gone into in this contempt application. The petitioner, if aggrieved may challenge the order dated 01.02.2010. For the present, I do not find that opposite parties have indulged in any willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 02.09.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11144 of 2009. As such, this Contempt application is disposed of with liberty aforesaid. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)