IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4748 of 2007 GAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI RAJNARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF MADHUBAN, P.S. MADHUBAN, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 14 9-9-2009 In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents particularly respondent nos.3 and 4 to make payment of a sum of Rs.44,736/- for having utilized his generator for the period from 16.2.2006 to 6.5.2006. The petitioner is a holder of Technical degree of I.T.I. in Electronic Trade from the Industrial Institute of Technology. On 26.6.2005 the CRPF Company Commander had requested the Block Development Officer, Madhuban to provide generator set and other items for illumination of its camp situated at Madhuban High School. The Block Development Officer orally asked the petitioner to take the contract work for supplying generator set to the CRPF camp along with other electrical items. The petitioner states that pursuant to an agreement arrived at between him and the Block Development Officer, he begun to provide generator services to the CRPF Camp. Though he has been paid the bills for different periods, no payment has been made for use of generator from 16.2.2006 to 6.5.2006 for almost 80 days. He submits that the bill calculated @ Rs.552.07 paise comes to Rs.44,216/- and after adding Rs.500/- towards the labour charges, the total bills came to be tune of Rs.44,716. The plea of the respondents is that they had paid the 2 bills in question to the petitioner and no due remains outstanding. However, the respondents complained that the services of the petitioner had become erratic and they replaced him with another contractor. The petitioner denied having been paid the bills and stated that it is the practice of the respondents to take pre- receipted signature on the back of the bills which in fact is reimbursed later on. The plea of the petitioner is that the payment of Rs.5,000/- and above is to be made by cheque and in any circumstances it has to be backed with proper vouchers, challan etc. The petitioner states that as he was not willing to pay commission to the office of the Block Development Officer, his bill has not been paid. This court by order dated 24.9.2008 directed the Vigilance to make an enquiry that the bills relied by the respondents are all pre-receipted bills which are in fact submitted for payment. This court further directed whether under the Bihar Treasury Code payment in excess of Rs.5,000/- are to be made by cheques. Secondly, when government payment is made to an individual, the same is backed by paper work, challan, vouchers, sanction of payment etc. The Vigilance department after making an enquiry has submitted its report. In its report the Vigilance department stated that in case of contingency the money is drawn and subsequently payment is made. The enquiry report did not find that the petitioner has not 3 KHAN been paid his dues. The petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application for challenging the vigilance report. He submits that the report does not mention whether payment in excess of Rs.5,000/- are to be paid by cheque or not or whether government payment is backed up by paper works i.e. challan, order and sanction of payment etc. The petitioner submits that there has been violation of various provisions of Bihar Treasury Code as well as Budget Manual. The respondents have filed reply stating therein that the payment in question was a contingent expenditure and the money was withdrawn from the treasury in anticipation of allotment. After hearing counsel for the parties, this writ petition as wells as Interlocutory Application is disposed of with an observation that as the facts of payment is disputed, the petitioner may take resort to any remedy available under the law. It goes without saying that the department has to observe and abide by the procedure laid down in the Treasury Code etc. (S.P.Singh,J)