IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1736 of 2007 ASHOK SINGH Versus THE STAE OF BIAHR & ORS ----------- 4 22.08.2008 This case depicts a very sorry state of affairs of administration. It appears that Government, lacking infrastructure to get its own work done, issues tender for work to be done almost in all spheres. When tenderers want payment for executing the work, the problem starts, payments are delayed, if not denied, on one pretext or the other . The contractors are commercial business men for whom finance is of prime importance. Delay in resolution of such disputes is fatal to their existence. A large number of writ petitions were being filed ,when on suggestion of this Court an internal arbitral form was created in the shape of Debt Liability Committee,disputes or claims were then referred to the Debt Liability Committee as individual Engineer or officer was not ready to take responsibility to take decision. The Debt Liability Committee consisted of officials of the department itself. It was expected that once the Debt Liability Committee decided , matter would rest, but it was not so, as this case would show. In most of the cases, the Liability Committee rejects the claims even on technical ground but here was a case where the Liability Committee which consisted of Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Planning and Coordinator Officer examined the claim of the petitioner and accepted the claim to the extent of total of Rs. 1,84,306/- in respect of three claims. This was so approved on 10.9.2005.When in spite of the aforesaid once in a rare occasion in which an order in favour to the - 2 - contractor was passed, nothing was done this writ petition was filed on 9.2.2007. It appears that no sooner the writ petition was filed ,State woke up and now hit upon an ingenious idea to deny the claim. The report of the Liability Committee was then sent to Engine-in-Chief making him as if he was an appellate authority and he, during the pendency of the writ petition, without noticing or hearing the petitioner set aside the order of the Liability Committee in toto. This has been brought on record by counter affidavit. In my view, this is not permissible. Once the State decides to refer the claim to Debt Liability Committee, which acts as an arbitral forum and once its own nominee decides the matter, that should be final so far as State is concerned.It may be open to the petitioner to challenge the decision but so far as State is concerned, which having nominated persons to take a decision on their behalf they are bound by the said decision . If the decision is against the State, the State must accept it because it is a decision of the nominee of the State. Merely because the decision goes against the State , another State official cannot exercise appellate power and review its decision. That would destroy the very concept of independent decision and resolution of dispute without intervention of the Court and people would lose faith in the system. People would be right in commenting that where the decision against the contractor, the arbitral forum becomes final and when it goes against the State, the State official sitting as appellate authority over rules it. This is an exercise to deny claim to the contractor thus destroying the faith of impartiality and alternative - 3 - dispute forum. I do not think that the order of the Engineer-in-Chief can be allowed to operate. It is an order which was passed ex parte and only when the petitioner approached this Court for enforcement of the order of the Liability Committee which had already been passed in favour of the petitioner. It is nothing but an excuse to deny the legitimate due to the petitioner, which is not permissible for the same. State must do what is just, fair and proper in conformity to Article 14. In such view of the matter ,order of the Engineer-in-Chief is set aside and it is directed that as per recommendation of the Debt Liability Committee, as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition, the payment must be made to the petitioner within a month. If petitioner has any other grievance, he may avail any other appropriate forum. The writ petition thus allowed with the above observations and directions. Singh (Navaniti Pd. Siongh)