IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5826 of 2006 SAHABJAN MIYA, Son of Late Jalu Hasan, resident of Village- Salehpur, P.S.- Bishambharpur, District- Gopalganj :--- Petitioner. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department of Bihar, Irrigation Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief (North) Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Irrigation Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, West Champaran at Siwan, P.S.- Siwan, District- Siwan. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Flood Control and Monitoring Division, Patna. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Flood Control and Circle, Padrauna, District- Kushi Nagar (U.P.). 7. The Executive Engineer Flood Control Division No.1, Madhubani Camp Office, Padrauna, Kushi Nagar (U.P.) 8. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department Flood Control Division-3, Madhubani, Camp Office- Padrauna, District- Kushi Nagar (U.P.) :-- Respondents. ----------- 3. 06.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is a works’ contractor. He was entrusted with the flood fighting work by the Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division Nos. 1 and 3, Madhubani Camp Office Padrauna Kushi Nagar, U.P. during the financial year 2003-04 and 2002-03. It is the contention of the petitioner that total outstanding amount of Rs. 1,77,480/- is due against the works executed by him and for payment of the said amount he has filed this writ application as according to the petitioner the amount is admitted by Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, the two Executive Engineers who have approved the bill on the measurement- book. 3. The State-respondents have disputed the aforesaid contention by filing a counter affidavit as according to them the amount admitted by the authorities have already been paid on the basis of the recommendation of the Liability Committee which is - 2 - contained in order bearing Memo No. 597 dated 22.7.2005, Annexure- A to the counter affidavit. 4. Counsel for the petitioner states that perusal of the order dated 22.7.2005, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit does not indicate that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Liability Committee as it is manifest from the said order itself that the Liability Committee considered the case of the dues in the two Divisions, namely, Division Nos. 1 and 3 and made recommendation for payment. The consideration made by the Liability Committee does not reflect the consideration of the case of the petitioner in person. 5. In the circumstances, I direct the members of the Liability Committee to again consider the case of the petitioner with reference to the agreements mentioned in the chart, Annexure-1 together with the measurement-book and pass appropriate order specifically dealing with the case of the petitioner with reference to the agreements referred to in the chart, Annexure-1 and if any further amount is found due to the petitioner then steps be taken to pay the said amount to the petitioner within a reasonable time, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Chairman of the Liability Committee. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)