IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.46 of 2005 ----------- Ramji Singh, son of late Maharaj Singh, resident of village Chandni Chauk Mohania, P.S. Mohania, District Kaimur Bhabhua. …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State if Bihar 2. The Engineer in Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum- Special Secretary, P.W.D. Road Vishwasariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. Road Circle, Arrah, District Bhojpur. 4. The Executive Engineer, Road Division, P.W.D. Dehrii on Sone, District Rohtas. … Respondents …… For the petitioner : Mr. Arvind Nath Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.1, Standing Counsel No. 12. ……. 03/ 03.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to make payment of the admitted dues of Rs. 1.01 lacs in the light of allotment of fund vide memo no. 32(S) dated 03.06.2003 issued by the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure 3) and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a contractor running his business in the name of M/s Ramji Singh and Company and he entered into an agreement dated 12.02.1992 with the respondents for improvement of Salimpur Chiksi Road fifth kilometer to eighth kilometer. He also states that the petitioner completed his work according to the terms and conditions of the agreement and departmental instructions and after completion of the total work final bill was prepared by the authority on 25.06.1997, but due to paucity of fund, only a sum of Rs.19,38,708.00 was paid and the balance amount of Rs.1.01 lacs remained due. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amount of Rs. 1.01 lacs was duly sanctioned but it remained pending due to lack of fund since 2003 and it was only during the pendency of the this writ petition that order dated 07.09.2005 was issued by the Road Construction Department rejecting the claim of the petitioner with regard to the said due amount, which was legal and valid as the bill had been passed and the Memorandum (Pay Order) was made, which is apparent from the Measurement Book and also in view of the communications of the authorities concerned dated 28.01.2003 (Annexure 1), dated 08.05.2003 (Annexure 2) and dated 03.06.2003 (Annexure 3). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner was considered by the Liability Committee, which submitted its report, on the basis of which the petitioner’s claim for payment of the said due amount of Rs.1.01 lacs was rejected by the Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, vide order dated 07.09.2005 (Annexure `A’) and hence there is no occasion for allowing this writ petition. 6. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the arguments of the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that according to the petitioner he had completed the work, which is apparent from the communications of the authorities concerned , which are attached to the writ petition as Annexures 1 to 3 showing that the petitioner was entitled to payment of the entire amount, out of which an amount of Rs. 19 lacs and odd was paid and the remaining amount of Rs.1.01 lacs, although sanctioned, was pending due to lack of fund inspite of the fact that the bill had been passed and the Memorandum (Pay Order) had been made in the Measurement Book. But according to the respondents, the petitioner had done the work only worth the amount which had already been paid to the petitioner and on enquiry the Vigilance had found that the entries in the Measurement Book were not legal and reliable and the work allotted as per the agreement was not fully completed by the petitioner. 7. From the aforesaid order of the Joint Secretary dated 07.09.2005 (Annexure `A’), it transpires that the matter had been properly considered by the authorities concerned, whereafter the report of the Liability Committee was submitted and, accordingly, the claim of the petitioner with respect to the remaining amount of Rs. 1.01 lacs was rejected by the said order. The said order was annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the year 2006 and in the same year a copy of the said counter affidavit along with the said annexure was served upon learned counsel for the petitioner. Had the petitioner been aggrieved by the said order, he could have challenged the same, but although a period of more than four years has lapsed, the petitioner has not challenged the said order either before this court or before any appropriate authority. 8. Furthermore, since the concerned authorities have found that the entries made in the Measurement Book were not valid and reliable, it was quite justified for the Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department to pass the said order. Furthermore, the said report of the Liability Committee and the order of the Joint Secretary were of the year 2005 much after the Memorandum (Pay Order ) was made in the Measurement Book before 2003 and communications of the authorities (Annexures 1 to 3) were made in the year 2003. Hence the authorities were quite justified in correcting their mistakes after specific findings in that regard. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)