IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4609 of 2005 Mahendra Sharan Sathi, son of Late Chhote Lal Yadav, resident of Village-Shivkund, P.O. & P.S.-Shivkund, District-Munger. ….. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Bhagalpur. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Bhagalpur. 6. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Bhagalpur. 7. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Munger. 8. The Commissioner, Finance Department, State of Bihar, Patna. ……..Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate. ---------- 03. 07.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents, especially the Commissioner, Finance Department, State of Bihar, Patna to make available the fund for payment of admitted bills of the petitioner and also to pay the admitted bills to the petitioner which was due since 1996. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was allowed work for Simra Aahar Madhyam Sinchayee Yojna under Lakhisarai Sub-division in the year 1987 which was completed and verification was also done by the authority concerned. The claim of the petitioner is for Rs.1,38,090.00. 4. On the other hand, it is claimed by the respondents that out of the said amount Rs.58, 239.00 has already been paid to the petitioner against the work done by him and petitioner’s claim - 2 - for the remaining amount had been rejected on 31.05.2005 by the Chief Engineer on the basis of the recommendation of the liability committee on the ground that it was belated by nine years and is not possible to verify the same afresh. 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no verification was to be done as the verification of the work had already been done by the authorities concerned within time and the same fully supports the claim of the petitioner. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that a disputed question of fact regarding the claim of the petitioner is involved in this case. Hence this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order of the Chief Engineer dated 31.05.2005 before the appropriate forum. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)