IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13329 of 2007 M/S KEMS SERVICE PVT.LTD.&ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7 20.08.2008 Petitioners had undertaken to execute certain works for the State. An agreement was duly entered into. Work was commenced. From time to time certain payments were made. It is submitted that when one of the running bills was to be paid, cheques were drawn up but then they were suddenly with-held and ultimately State finding that the work was not satisfactorily scheduled, the agreement was cancelled. Consequent to the cancellation, during the pendency of the writ petition, the balance work was re-tendered and fresh agreement with third party had already been entered into and work order issued. In view of these facts, this court is of the view that little can be done by this Court now to grant any substantive relief to the petitioner. One thing, which this Court can certainly do is to obligate the State to settle the account for the work already done. Petitioner would be at liberty to file a detailed representation with supporting documents to establish their claim for the work already done. Respondents would be obliged to enquire into and examine the same and within one month of its being filed dispose of the same by a speaking order. In case it is found that any amount is due with the petitioner, the authority would ensure that the same is paid to the petitioner forthwith soon after orders are passed. The order shall be a 2 speaking order and would be communicated to the petitioner, who may take such steps as are advised to them in that regard. In my view, this disposes of the writ petition finally. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh)