IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17485 of 2011 1. Ajeet Kumar Singh son of Sri Raj Kishore Singh, resident of village-Thakrahan, P.O. + P.S. Thakrahan. 2. Dhru Prasad, son of Late Moti Sah, resident of village- Machachhargaonwa, P.O. + P.S.- Yogapatti. 3. Sanjeev Enterprises through its proprietor Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sri Gaurishankar Singh, resident of village- Balmiki Nagar, P.S.- Balmiki Nagar. 4. Chinta Mani Pandey, S/o Sri Bishwanath Pandey, resident of village- Chanawan Bandh Majhaulia, P.S.-Majhaulia. 5. Rajesh Singh, son of Sri Surajdeo Singh, resident of village- Krishachan quarter Bettiah, P.S.- Bettiah Town. All District- West Champaran. ……Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Engineer in Chief (North), Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Balmiki Nagar, West Champaran, Bettiah. 5. The Suprintending Engineer, Tirhut Canal Circle Water Resources Department, Bettiah. 6. The Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division No.1, Water Resources Department, Bettiah. …..Respondents. -------- For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Neeraj Raj, A. C. To G. P. XI. --------- 03/ 24.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:- (A) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order(s) direction quashing the order contained in letter no.1659 dated 03.09.11 issued under the signature of Executive Engineer - 2 - respondent no.6 refusing to make payment for the work done by petitioner on the ground that Sri Sakaldeo Mishra has filed C.W.J.C No.7936/10 in the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant status quo on 24.6.11 in the said writ petition with respect to the tender advertisement no.4/10-11 till the disposal of the writ petition.(Annexure-3). (B) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order (s) direction commanding the respondents for the following- (i) To hold the order contained in Annexure-3 is non est in the eye of law. (ii) To hold that the work done by the petitioners relating to item No. 2,3, 5, 6, 8, 9 to 10 to Tender Advertisement No.4/10-11 are not the subject matter in the CWJCNo.7636/10. (iii) To hold that item no.1, 4 and 7 are the subject matter of the CWJC No.7636/10 and present work done by the petitioners are not related with the same. (iv) To hold that the Hon’ble Court was pleased to restrain the respondents from taking any further step with regard to bid in question vide Tender No.4/10-11. (v) To hold that the Executive Engineer respondent no.6 with ulterior motive misinterpreted of the Hon’ble High Court passed on 24.6.2011 in CWJC No.7936/11. (vi) To direct the respondents to make payment done by the petitioners as per agreement with respect to the item nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, & 10 of Tender Advertisement No.4/10-11 forthwith up-to-date interest. (C) Any other relief(s) for which the petitioners are found entitled to. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have completed their work, but no payment is being made to them in view of order of stay dated 24.06.2011 passed by this Court in CWJC No.7936 of 2011. It may be noted that the aforesaid writ petition has already been disposed of and the order of stay has been vacated. In the said circumstances, there is no hindrance in payment of - 3 - the due amount to the petitioner, if it is found in accordance with law. 4. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Sunil/ (S. N. Hussain, J.)