IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13666 of 2007 MD.MURTUZA HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Thakur Mr. Amir Alam Mr. Dudhnath Singh For the State : AAG-3 For the Bihar State : Mr. Rajiv Nayan Singh Housing Board ------------- 07 16.09.2008 The unfortunate petitioner, contractor had undertaken to construct 52 units of houses under the 20-point programme at village Majhia within Goraul block of district Vaishali. Under Agreement No. 10/83-84 as between the petitioner and the respondent-Housing Board. The petitioner completed the work and then as usual in this State the problem of payment started. As usual, knowing that approach to Civil Court would be defeating the very purpose, as the litigation would draw for decades. Without being payment coming to the petitioner, the respondent-Housing Board sat over the matter. Ultimately, petitioner having exhausted himself approached this Court against the arbitrary action of the Housing Board in not honoring its promise to pay and refund the security on completion of work. In the Counter affidavit filed Housing Board admits that the third running bill was prepared on 13.06.1984 for Rs. 1,50,136/- on basis of verification of work done and the same had been paid. It then admits that pursuant to verification the fourth running bill (which includes the work done up to the third running bill) was prepared for Rs. 1,69,308/- and thus admits that the difference of Rs. 19,172/- payment - 2 - to be paid. It similarly accepts that the total deductions on account of security over the period of execution of the contract was Rs. 12,407/- which was yet to be refunded. Thus, the total admitted dues of the petitioner is Rs. 31,579/- which after deduction of income tax at source @ 2% comes to Rs. 31,296/-. For which now a cheque has been prepared and communicated to the petitioner by letter No. 167 dated 14.03.2008, which the petitioner may collect from the Office of the Executive Engineer of the Housing Board of the Muzaffarpur Division at Muzaffarpur. The cheque of petitioner demanding the same would be handed over after due revalidation. This Court by earlier orders pointed to note as to what was the reason for this gross inordinate delay in making payment, as petitioner had made allegations of mala fide of the respondents is to be found. In the counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that originally the completion of the construction of 52 units was a plan of the Revenue Department of Government of Bihar, which had been delegated to the Housing Board and as such payment were due from the Revenue Department of Government of Bihar to the Housing Board and those payments not having come to the Housing Board. Even though, Housing Board took the work from the petitioner, it could not pay the same. In my view, this is not a lame excuse to a mere pretence of an excuse to justify gross inaction. There was no brevity of contract between the petitioner and the Revenue Department, Government of Bihar. The agreement was between the Housing Board and the petitioner and is not disputed under which discharge liability of the - 3 - Housing Board to make payment for the work done by the petitioner. Admittedly, it was not conditional upon money coming from the Revenue Department. Thus, I find that there is absolutely no reason for withholding the payments/refund for such a long time. I would, thus, direct that from the time payment was due and refund was due till the date of the cheque. Petitioner in order to balance equities would be entitled to a simple interest of 6% per annum, as a matter for wrongful withholding payment/refund. It must be remembered that Housing Board is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and in all its action including contractual matters it has to be bound by Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as, its action must confirm to be of fairness and reasonableness. Here, clearly the actions have been not only unfair but unreasonable and thus the direction is aforesaid. The petitioner would thus be entitled to get revalidated cheque forthwith, as noticed above along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the time payment was issued from the date of cheque. Which payment should be made by cheque in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month by the respondent-Executive Engineer, Muzaffarpur Division of the Bihar State Housing Board. The writ petition thus stands allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)