IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20594 of 2010 NAGESHWAR PRASAD YADAV SON OF LATE TRILOKI PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GIDDHA, P.S. KAINDI, DISTIRCT- LAKHISARAI. ….. …..PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNGER DIVISION, MUNGER. 3. THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA. 4. THE D.D.C. DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE NO.2. JAMUI, DISTRICT-JAMUI. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER WAYS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, DISTRICT-SHEIKHPURA, BIHAR, PATNA. …..RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate. Mrs. Kiran Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Ramnath Saran, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, A.A.G-5. ---------- 08/ 03.03.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the place with respect to the authority detailed as respondent no.6. 2. This case is being adjourned since December, 2010 to enable learned counsel for the respondents to seek instructions and file counter affidavit but the same has not been filed. On 04.02.2011 again a prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of the respondents for seeking instructions and filing counter affidavit and the case was adjourned with a note that much time has elapsed and inspite of sufficient time having been given to the respondents earlier, no counter affidavit has been filed till date and hence if no counter affidavit is filed by the next date, i.e. 28.02.2011, by the respondents, the court shall be constrained to presume that they - 2 - have nothing to say against the facts stated in the writ petition. 3. When this case was again listed on 01.03.2011 it was found that order dated 04.02.2011 passed by this court was not complied but taking a lenient view the case was adjourned to enable the respondents to do the needful. Today when the case is called out, learned counsel for the respondents submits that still no instructions have been received from the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura or any other authority although he had sent information to them including three faxes and two telephones to the District Magistrate Sheikhpura. In the said circumstances, this court is left with no option but to hold that the respondents have nothing to say against the facts stated in the writ petition. 4. From the statements made in the writ petition as well as from the letter dated 17.04.2009 (annexure-5) issued by the Executive Engineer Water Ways Division, Department of Irrigation, Sheikhpura (respondent no.6) it is apparent that the amount of contract was for Rs.72,61,142.00. From the statements made in the writ petition as well as from the letter sent by the Deputy Development Commissioner to Standing Counsel- 19, Patna High Court dated 01.04.2010 (Annexure-6) it transpires that 90% of the said work has been completed by the petitioner. However, from letter dated 25.03.2010 (Annexure-11) it appears that the Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division, Sheikhpura had written to the District Magistrate that about 80% work has been completed by the petitioner, but from a bare perusal of the - 3 - said letter it is quite apparent that there is an interpolation and overwriting in the percentage of work done stated therein as it is clear that ‘80’ has been interpolated by overwriting by pen on the typed number ‘90’. These materials are sufficient to show that the authorities concerned are unnecessarily harassing the petitioner. 5. It is further stated that three cheques worth Rs.9,82,620.00, Rs.8,43,062.00 and Rs.12,20,244.00 totalling Rs.30,45,926.00 has already been issued to the petitioner and another bill worth Rs.10,92,448.00 was also prepared but has not yet been paid to the petitioner. Thus the agreement amount being Rs.72,61,142.00 and 90% of the work having been completed by the petitioner, he is fully entitled to 90% of the agreement amount which comes to Rs.65,35,027.00. Out of the said amount the petitioner has already been paid Rs.9,82,620.00, Rs.8,43,062.00 and Rs.12,20,244.00 totalling Rs.30,45,926.00 and another bill of Rs.10,92,448.00 has also been prepared for the petitioner which must be paid to the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. After payment of the aforesaid four bills, the total amount paid to the petitioner would come to Rs.41,38,374.00. Hence, petitioner would be entitled to a further amount of Rs.23,96,653.00 ( 65,35,027.00 – 41,38,374.00) to make payment of 90% amount of the agreement amount to which he is entitled due to completion of 90% of the work as per non-controverted facts of this case. 6. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is - 4 - disposed of with a direction to the respondents, especially the Collector of Sheikhpura (respondent no.3) to ensure payment of Rs.23,96,653.00 within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let it be noted that this is not full and final payment with regard to claim of the petitioner and if more amount is payable to the petitioner, he will be entitled to raise his claim before the appropriate forum. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)