IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9813 of 2006 Hardeo Prasad, son of late Ram Kisun Sah, Village & Post- Hilsa, District-Nalanda (Bihar) -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, “Vishweswaraiya Bhawan”, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner, Road Construction Department, “Vishweswaraiya Bhawan”, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer (5), Road Construction Department, Vishweswaraiya Bhawan”, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Road Circle Patna, Chhajjubagh, Patna. 6. The Executive Engineer, Road Division, Biharsharif (Nalanda). -Respondents. ----------- 03 01.05.2009 The petitioner had executed some road repair work and entered into an agreement being Agreement No. 38 F2 of 2002-03. Having executed the work, when payments were not made, he approached this Court. While the matter was pending before this Court, the State Government has decided to refer the matter to Liability Committee to enquire the matter and give its opinion. The Liability Committee while recommending payment made a deduction of Rs. 1,70,525/- from the bill payable. The reason was not disclosed. This Court then asked the Liability Committee to disclose the reason in support of the deductions. The reasons, as apparent from the supplementary counter affidavit, are two folds. Firstly, that in the measurement book verification of measurement has been done by the Sub-divisional Officer but not by the Executive Engineer. That has been treated as a 2 case of no measurement and the claim in respect thereof has been rejected, in view of the Cabinet Vigilance Letter No. 462 dated 30.03.1982. Stopping here for a moment, this is most peculiar plea. If State officials fail to do measurement in discharge of their functions of their office how can the petitioner suffer. It would have been totally a different matter if the Executive Engineer had endorsed in the measurement book that findings that he refused to measure but the book was never put up before him or he never bothered to sign it. That cannot be a ground to deny petitioner’s payments. The Sub-divisional Officer is an Officer of the State. He verified it. Reasons must forthwith be given as to why Executive Engineer did not verify it and merely because he failed to verify, the payment cannot be denied to the petitioner otherwise it would be putting premium on the exercise of power of the Executive Engineer. That cannot be a ground for withholding payment. Next it is said that the work had to be executed by 25th May, 2004, the Liability Committee took that view but blissfully shut its eyes. The Liability Committee blissfully ignored the Letter No. 367 dated 13.04.2004, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, where Executive Engineer, who was the competent authority, had already granted extension of time for supply of bitumen up to 15.05.2004 and thereafter one month’s further extension for completion of the work. In that view of the matter, both grounds taken by the Liability Committee cannot be sustained. The report of the Liability Committee in this regard is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 3 Liability Committee to decide afresh, keeping in view observations of this Court, as made above. It is expected that the Liability Committee would take its decision within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the concerned Chief Engineer and if payment is due then ensure that the payment be made within a period of one month. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)