IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1573 of 2005 Sri Ranjeet Kumar, S/o Sri Narendra Prasad Singh, R/o Village - Tilhari, P.O.-Kamla Gopalapur, P.S.-Maner, District-Patna. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Secretary, Water Resources Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Executive Engineer, Ganga Sone Protection Division, Digha, Patna. For the petitioner : Mr. Arbind Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Jha, A.C. to GA-1. ----------- 03. 20.01.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to make payment of the work done as per the contract amount to Rs. 27,835/- with statutory interest at the rate of 12% per annum and cost of litigation etc. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the parties had executed Agreement no. 3H/99-2000 for supply of local sand under Mainpurwa Subdivision and after supply of the sand the bill was prepared amounting to Rs. 27,888/- in M.B. No. 719 at page 4 to 6 and the bill was also pre-checked on 30.03.2000. It is also stated in the counter affidavit of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner was against the work done in the year 1999-2000 and its payment could have been taken only after approval of the Liability Committee but the Liability Committee had rejected the claim of the petitioner by its order dated 19.05.2005. Hence, the 2 payment to the petitioner cannot be made. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that the claim of the petitioner was as per the agreement and work done, but even after the bill being passed, the payment could not be made due to rejection of the petitioner’s claim by the Liability Committee. The said order of the Liability Committee has been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a supplementary application dated 08.08.2006. From the said order of the Liability Committee, it is quite apparent that it was passed much after the filing of this writ petition and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to place his case before the Liability Committee and an order was passed without considering the basis on which the petitioner had claimed the reliefs. 5. In the said circumstances, the order of the Liability Committee dated 19.05.2005 (Annexure-A) is quashed and the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move before the Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna (Respondent no. 3) by way of filing a detail representation annexing a copy of this order and the relevant materials so that the matter may be considered in detail and be decided afresh in accordance with law by the appropriate authority by a speaking order. If such a representation is filed within 15 days from today, the authority concerned shall decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously after giving an 3 opportunity of hearing to the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J.)