IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2963 of 2009 KAMALUDDIN, son of Md. Doman, Resident of Mohalla- Khanka, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Munger. …………………………………………………………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief. Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Bhagalpur. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Bihar Circle, Bhagalpur. 6. The Executive Engineer, Road Division, Lakhisarai. …………………………………………………….. Respondents. ----------- 02/ 05.03.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, a contractor has filed this writ application for the following reliefs : - "(i) That, this is an application for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, for direction, directing the Respondent Authorities to pay the admitted dues amount of Rs. 80,489/- regarding the contract of M/R to Barahiya Lakhisarai Suryagarha, Munger Road in K.M. 154(05)2nd half and K.M. 155 (1st half) for the year 1998-99 (Surface Renewal) under Agreement No. 45F2/1998-99 from all over amount of Rs. 2,34,116 and amount of Rs. 86,791/- regarding the contract work of construction of R.C.C. culvert (1X3.00X1.83N) in 4th K.M. of Suryagarha Mahsouni via Manikpur Road for the year 1998-99 under Agreement No. 55F2/1998-99 from all over amount of Rs. 3,97,106/- and also for direction directing the Respondents to pay 05% above on B.O.Q. rates and all above items and rates with interest of the entire amount of different works in accordance with law. And for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case. “ - 2 - The aforesaid grievance with regard to non-payment of certain amount relating to performance of a non-statutory contract by the petitioner relating to construction of road in the year 1998-99 in view of an agreement between the parties (the petitioner and the State) being out and out a money claim normally and essentially cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of power under Section 226 of the Constitution. This aspect of the matter stands well settled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of BASF India Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1992(2) P.L.J.R. 714. In fact this aspect of the matters also stands settled and concluded by a recent judgment of Apex Court in the case of Pimpri Chinchwad Corporation and others Vs. Gayatri Construction Company and others reported in 2008 (8) SCC 172. In that view of the matter this writ application is wholly misconceived. Counsel would however contend that since it is a claim for admitted amount, this Court can definitely issue a direction because one of the contracting party is the State Government. In view of the settled law as noticed above that an issue relating to payment of amount of a non statutory contract has to be adjudicated though a civil suit, whether for admitted or non-admitted amount, the same can not be allowed to make subject matter of a writ petition. In this context this Court would find that the agreement was executed in the year 1998-99 and the work is said to have been completed in the year 1999. The agreement was for a sum of Rs. - 3 - 2,34,116/- and the amount which was ultimately claimed for payment was of Rs. 3,97,106/- and, therefore, essentially the same gave rise to a question whether proper permission of the competent authority was taken in terms of the agreement read with P.W.D. Code. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that when the agreement was for Rs. 2, 34,116/- only and the total amount claimed was Rs. 3, 97,106/- the same is an admitted amount. It may be that the petitioner may claim to have worked under the agreement but then if the sanction for the amount was confined to Rs. 2, 34,116/- any authority who has exceeded his authority in taking work from the petitioner without prior approval of the competent authority as prescribed in P.W.D. Code will be deemed to have violated the relevant Government Rules. This being so, this Court is not inclined to issue a direction for payment of the amount claimed in this writ application. Nontheless, it would be still open for the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner and find out as to whether the petitioner is entitled for such payment and if so to what extent.. With the aforesaid observations/directions this application is disposed of. S.Sb/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)