IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13220 of 2007 MD.ZAHEER ANSARI, son of Salamat Ansari, resident of Mohalla-Meer Tola, Police Station-Saharsa, District-Saharsa. ……..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar , through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Saharsa. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Saharsa. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa. ………Respondents. ----------- 05. 10.04.2009 The facts of this case depict a very sorrow state of affairs where if what is stated in the counter affidavit is correct then how senior State Officials act hand in globe with contractors to cheat government becomes apparent. Petitioner alleges that pursuant to a notice inviting tender, he was selected for supply of Table and Chairs in large quantity for use in Government Schools. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that it was the District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa who had issued the tender, selected and gave orders for supply to the petitioner in the year 2003. Petitioner asserts that supplies having been made, payment was demanded but the District Superintendent of Education kept postponing the matter on the ground that he was writing to the State - 2 - Government for release of funds for making payments and as soon as funds were received payments would be made. Payments not being made, petitioner filed this writ petition in which he annexed copies of letter of the District Superintendent of Education addressed to the Director, Primary Education seeking allocation of funds for making payments to the petitioner. Now when instructions were received by the learned State counsel, she herself was in a difficult situation because of conflicting instructions received. The matter was thus adjourned noticing this predicament on 26.03.2009. Counter affidavits having been filed while one on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 and other on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. One is sworn by Sri. Shiv Shankar Das on 20.03.2009 as the District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa and the other is sworn by Bal Krishna Das on 10.04.2009 who is the present District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa. In the first counter affidavit the basis facts are admitted including the admission of the District Superintendent of Education writing to the government for allocating funds for payment to the petitioner’s bills which clearly shows that he was satisfied to the extent of supplies made by the petitioner but certain doubts were created with regard to full supply. In the second counter affidavit dated 10.04.2009 though - 3 - initial tender and selection is admitted, and it is also admitted that District Superintendent of Education had sought funds for payments of petitioner’s bills but a totally new story has been set up that the Head Clerk of the D.S.E. Office had manipulated the things on his own without authority. The stand is even taken to the extent that no sooner supplies were made they were rejected then and there and returned, then plea is taken that the Head Clerk got the supplies diverted to other station without authority. No explanation is given why if no supplies were made or supplies were rejected, why the D.S.E did write to the State Government for allocating funds for payment to the petitioner for long standing bills in the facts aforesaid. All of a sudden in the year 2009 when supplies are said to have been made in 2004, enquiries are being made, what authorities were doing for five long years is also not disclosed. All this discloses sinister affairs to defraud the government or the contractor. I wish to say no more but refer this matter to the State Cabinet Vigilance to make enquiries and take appropriate action against responsible people notwithstanding the assurance of initiation of departmental proceedings against the Head Clerk and other Officials of the Education Department of Saharsa. In view of the serious disputes that have been - 4 - raised, it is not possible to entertain this writ application, the writ application is dismissed as such but let a copy of this order be sent to the State Vigilance Commission to immediately take up the matter and file a report before this Court within six months from today as to the progress of the investigation. The writ petition stands dismissed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)