IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3317 of 2007 Tripit Narayan Singh, son of Late Jattoo Singh, Resident of village : Mathurapur, P.O. Mai Farida, P.S. Rahui, District: Nalanda, at present C/o Hotel Anukul, Mohalla: Quamruddinganj, At & P.O.:- Bihar Shariff, District: Nalanda, Pin:-803101. ……….Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Energy, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager (E.R.), Power Grid Corporation India Ltd., Alankar Place, (5th & 6th Floor) Boring Road, Patna-1. 3. The Chief Manager (Eastern Region) Power Grid Corporation India Ltd. Alankar Place, (5th & 6th Floor) Boring Road, Patna-1. 4. The Manager (C &M) Power Grid Corporation India Ltd., Eastern Region, Bihar Sharif, G.H.Q. 400 K.V. Sub-Station, Patna-Ranchi Road, P.O. Mahanandpur, Town Bihar Sharif, District: Nalanda. 5. The Chief Manager (5/5tn), Power Grid Corporation Ltd., Eastern Region, Bihar Sharif, G.H.Q. 400 K.V. Sub-Station, Patna-Ranchi Road, P.O. Mahanandpur, Town Bihar Sharif, District: Nalanda. 6. The Deputy Manager (F&A), Power Grid Corporation India Ltd., Eastern Region, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda. …….. Respondents. ------------- For the Petitioiner : Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Dudheshwar Singh, L.G. C. Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh ----------- 03. 30.01.2009 The petitioner was awarded the road repair work by pre-mixed carpeting in the township of Power Grid at Bihar Sharif Sub-Station by award dated 24.01.2005 (Annexure- 2) Clause 7 of the award reads thus:- “Security Deposit:- 10% amount on the bills shall be deducted from your R.A. Bill/Final bill as security deposit and the - 2 - same will be released after 03 months from the date of completion of one year the defect liability period which shall mean that security deposit of 10% of contract value shall be released after 15 (Fifteen) months from the date of completion of work or otherwise the party has to submit performance Bank Guarantee for an equal of 10% of the contract value valid up to 15 (fifteen) months from the date of completion of work. The PBG formate shall be supplied by Powergrid as and when required by the party.” Accordingly, petitioner completed the work by letter dated 07.10.2005, certain defects were pointed out, which the petitioner repaired. Subsequently, again on 02.09.2006 there was complaint with regard to damage the road, the petitioner sent his reply on 19.09.2006 (Annexure- 5), petitioner pointed out that on earlier occasion also he had duly repaired the road, but there was earth defect and he was required to only pre-mixed carpeting work which he had done. Petitioner accordingly sought refund of security deposit in terms of Clause 7 of the work. In the counter-affidavit. The same is now denying on the ground of Clause 14 of the same work reads thus:- “The work shall be guaranteed for a period of 04 (Four) year for any damaged.” - 3 - Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Clause 7 permits with-holding of security to a maximum of fifteen months from the date of completion of work. It does not permit the respondent Power Grid Corporation to with- hold security beyond that period. As nothing from the facts narrated above, defects were pointed out in October 2005, which were duly rectified, because again same defects are pointed out in September 2006. It is not mentioned that the defect earlier pointed out in October 2005 had not yet been repaired nor is there any response brought on record to petitioner’s letter, as contained in Annexure-5. The existence whereof is not disputed thus on these facts yet it is clear that this is the respondent Power Grid Corporation, which is trying to raise pretence of a dispute to unduly hold back refund of security money, which they had no authority to retain beyond 15 months, as provided in Clause 7 of their own award of work. Respondent Power Grid Corporation is Government of India undertaking and is a state instrumentality. It must act fairly and bonafidely and raised pretence of dispute to denying legitimate claims of citizens. It can not rely on one part of agreement and ignore the - 4 - liability cost on it under the other part. There is no letter brought on record by the Corporation to show that any time after 2006 they had reminded the petitioner that the road needed repair and it was not so done. These facts fortify that the dispute is now being raised is merely pretence of dispute. Under such circumstances, I have no option but to direct in terms of Clause 7 of award of work respondent corporation would refund the security to the petitioner within one month, failing which they shall be liable to refund the same along with interest @ 9% per annum. The refund should be made within one month. The writ petition thus stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to respondent no. 6 Power Grid Corporation. Vikash/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)