CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10906 OF 1999 BISHUNDEV PRASAD SINGH, son of late Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of village – Manjhaul, P.S. Cheria Bariarpur, District – Begusarai. ----------(Petitioner) Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Circle Officer, Cheriya Bariyarpur Block, District – Begusarai. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Manjhaul, Sub-Division, District – Begusarai. 4. The District Development Commissioner, Begusarai. 5. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. 6. The Junior Engineer, N.R.E.P. Cheriya Bariyarpur Block, District – Begusarai. 7. The Assistant Engineer, N.R.E.P. Begusarai. 8. The Executive Enginer, N.R.E.P. Begusarai. --------------- Respondents. For The Petitioner : DR.AMRENDRA KUMAR 1 For The Respondent : RANJAN KUMAR, J.C. to A.A.G. 4 --------------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI A. K. Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is a respected resident of Manjhaul, Begusarai. Under certain circumstances he volunteered to take responsibility for putting up the Bus Stand at his own cost and expenses and in lieu thereof he was allowed to collect toll from the Bus Stand to be able to recover the cost of putting up the Bus Stand. This fact is not in dispute because the State authorities entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner giving him such a - 2 - right. The first phase of development of the Bus Stand was successfully completed and even collection of the toll during the period fixed in terms of Annexure – 3 accrued to the petitioner and there was no dispute. The present problem has arisen when some more work was expected to be done by the petitioner and for which he was granted additional time for collecting toll in this regard from the Bus Stand. It is categorical statement of the petitioner that funding of the development was his own and no kind of assistance, financial in nature was made by the State or the State authorities. Some where down the line, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate of Manjhaul in the year 1999 got an impression that the work of the bus stand was being carried out on government funding and since the requisite work had not been completed, the petitioner was directed either to complete the work within the time frame or refund a sum of Rs. 3,42,065.79 paise as the estimated cost of left over work. The petitioner was also informed that in case of his failure the above money would be recovered as a certificate dues. The communication is dated 16.10.1999 and is contained in Annexure – 1, which is under challenge. Learned counsel for the petitioner has many submissions to make on the legality of such direction or - 3 - decision especially when there was no money advanced by the State authorities to complete the additional work for which the petitioner was given a fresh lease in terms of Annexure – 5. The petitioner wants adjudication of the dispute and interference with the communication contained in Annexure – 1. Without going into the merits of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent State, this Court records that the right or liability of the petitioner flows from the lease agreement which had been entered between the parties which included State authorities. In that view of the matter, if there was any breach of the lease agreement then it is open either to the petitioner or the respondents to take recourse to common law remedies and by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the amount indicated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his communication contained in Annexure – 1 can be a public demand and recoverable as a certificate case. Remedy for the parties would be under common law and forum would be a civil court since it relates to an agreement entered between the parties. This court has serious doubt whether the action contemplated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as contained in Annexure – 1 is inconformity with law in - 4 - this regard. Annexure – 1 is quashed with a liberty to the parties to resolve their disputes amicably or approach Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief or remedy. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Patna High Court The 18th Day of November, 2008 NAFR/ARF, Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)