IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11223 of 2005 Sukhdeo Singh, son of Late Ram Baran Singh, resident of village Tej Bigha, P.S. Kako, Distt. Jehanabad. ------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Minor Irrigation, Department, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna, Bihar. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Minor Irrigation Department, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna, Bihar. 3. The Chief Engineer (South), Tubewell Division, Minor Irrigation Department, Shekhpura, Patna – 14. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Tubewell Circle, Gaya. 5. The Executive Engineer, Tube well Division, Minor Irrigation, Eastern Gandhi Maidan, Jehanabad. 6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Tubewell Sub Division, Minor Irrigation, Near Railway Station, Jehanabad. ------ Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2. 14.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4 is on record. The writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to pay rent from February 1979 to May 1983 for the premises which was used as Office of Sub Divisional Officer, Tubewell Sub Division, Jehanabad, under the department of Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar. As per the counter affidavit, a statement has been made that the petitioner was paid rent from January, 1983 to March, 1983 by Cheque No. 745436 and, therefore, it is contended that rent for any period prior to that has also been paid. However, it is also stated in the counter affidavit that records are not available for any other period. It is stated that the records 2 being old are not supposed to be kept beyond 12 years i.e. upto the year 1996 and as such it was difficult to locate and verify the claim of the petitioner. This Court finds such stand of the respondents untenable as on the one hand they are able to say that for the period from January 1983 to March 1983 rent had been cleared disclosing the number of Cheque and on the other hand, they say that because of lack of records, they have not been able to clearly say and confirm about the payment. At the same time, if records are available for one period then surprisingly how it is not available for another period? Besides this, since Government made payment through Cheque, it can be very well verified from the Treasury or other Government records which deal with financial transaction which is not to be destroyed and are maintained. In that view of the matter, it would be incumbent upon the authority to look into the matter and ensure that payment for which period has not been made. If there is nothing on record to disprove the claim of the petitioner or the stand taken by him, this Court would probably be constrained to accept the facts and figures as mentioned in the writ petition by the petitioner. This Court further feels that in view of Annexure-1 where the specific term with regard to the electricity bill has been mentioned, on the claim of the petitioner, the department cannot take a stand that the rent was inclusive of payment on account of electric consumption also. In view of there being no specific agreement between 3 the parties that the rent would be inclusive of electric consumption, the respondents cannot hold that the rent paid by them would include the electric charges also since it is the domain of the respondents to consume any amount of electricity for which they are directly liable to make payment. From the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to respondent No. 2 to ensure that the payment is made to the petitioner of whatever period for which he has not been paid the rent. The petitioner shall also be entitled for payment of the electric dues which are for the period during which the premises was occupied by the respondents. If the petitioner was forced to pay the same alongwith interest, then he will also be entitled to get reimbursement to that extent. In view of the fact that the petitioner had been forced to move this Court for the present grievance, this Court deems it fit that petitioner be given some compensation. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to cost which is Rs. quantified as Rs. 2,000/-. Let such payment be made to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order upon respondent No. 2. S.Ali ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)