IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3288 of 2006 M/S JAI HANUMAN TENT & LIGHT HOUSE through its Proprietor Ram Pratap Sah son of late Ram Khelawan Sah, resident of village, P.O., P.S. & District - Madhepura Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Fiancé Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Collector, Madhepura. 3. The Treasury Officer, Madhepura. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta. For the State : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, AC to GP 12. --------- 02. 12.01.2010 I.A. No.527 of 2008 has been filed for substitution of the petitioner by legal heir and representative of Ram Pratap Sah, Proprietor of M/S Jai Hanuman Tent & Light House, who passed away on 12.11.2007. I.A. is allowed. Let the name of Bijay Kumar Gupta be substituted in place of the original proprietor of the Company namely, Ram Pratap Sah. In the normal course the Court would not have entertained the writ application of the petitioner for the primary reason that the claim made by him is for payment of his dues for the work done by him in the year 1995. Work was assigned to the petitioner and the same was done by him is not disputed. But after the completion of the work when the bill was submitted for Rs.33,87,280/- it was not paid on the ground of paucity of fund. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. The authenticity of the claim of the petitioner is not denied. The reason for non-payment is that despite several communications made by the District Magistrate with the high-ups in Patna no allocation of fund - 2 - was made and the petitioner could not be paid his dues till date. With the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit and the dues not having been denied, therefore, even though the claim relates to the year 1995, the Court is obliged to entertain the writ application. The Court fails to understand as to how a welfare State takes obligation from its citizens by awarding work upon them and then fails to meet its liability by promptly making payments for the work done. Availability of fund and allocation of resource is the work of the State and its functionaries. It is not for the citizens to find out whether necessary funds have been kept aside for the work or not. If the petitioner has fulfilled his obligation by completing the work in terms of the assignment then it is incumbent upon the State to ensure that funds are released or procured from whatever source and payment is made to the petitioner. Similar is the view expressed by a Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh vs. State of Bihar & others, 2000 (2) PLJR 173. In view of the above petitioner has made out a case for interference and a direction. The writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the District Magistrate, Madhepura that he shall take all necessary steps possible for allocation of funds, if necessary from the Finance Department, Government of Bihar and pay to the petitioner his legal dues preferably within a period of four months from the date of production / communication of this order. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) - 3 -