IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.516 of 2009 M/S R.L.CHOUDHARY & CO. through its Partner Sri Ambrish Kumar, son of late Ram Lalla Choudhary, resident of village – Panchobh, P.S. Bishanpur, District – Darbhanga. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Superintending Engineer, R W D Division, Darbhanga. 3. The Executive Engineer, RWD Division, Darbhanga. ----------- 2 18-5-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has lodged claim for a sum of Rs.3, 61,771/- for construction of a road on the basis of a contract no. 38 F-2/1999-2000. According to the petitioner, work was done by him, but the final settlement of the bills was not made by the respondents on one ground or the other. After the completion of work measurements had been carried out and the reflection of the work done by the petitioner is available in the measurement book, but despite the same the respondent-authorities decided to refer the matter to the Liability Committee. The Liability Committee based on the evidence and the claim of the petitioner did accept that a sum of Rs.3,29,501.00 was payable to the petitioner but recommendation of payment has not been acted upon. The matter travelled thereafter to the Engineer- in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar. Vide order dated 22-2-2005 the liability was denied by quoting clause 10 of the Agreement, which runs as 2 follows: “The contractor shall execute the whole and every part of the work in the most substantial and workman like manner, and both as regard materials and otherwise in every respect in strict accordance with specification.” Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said clause or the reason indicated in the impugned order contained in Annexure-2 in no way belies the fact that the work was done , measurements made and the matter also verified and endorsed by the Liability Committee. Quoting the provision of the Agreement without indicating as to what work was not carried out and not found suitable and workman like, both with regard to material and otherwise, may not help as it has not been indicated in the said order. In absence of material and reasoning clause 10 is no justification for denying the claim of the petitioner. Clause 10 even otherwise cannot be applied in abstract and the only ground why the claim of the petitioner is denied at the level of Engineer- in-Chief is reluctance on the part of the State authorities to make payment to the petitioner. Counsel for the State has tried to justify the order of the Engineer-in-Chief by saying that terms and conditions of the agreement envisage such a situation and the work carried out by the petitioner cannot be accepted on the face value merely because the Liability Committee has made a recommendation. In response to the counter-affidavit the petitioner 3 has filed a rejoinder and brought additional material to show that at every stage of the work done entries have been made in the measurement book and the concerned Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer have put endorsements and signatures thereto. The stand taken by the respondent-Engineer-in-Chief therefore is unfair not only to the interest of the petitioner but also his financial well-being. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision which is the case of M/S Raghav Construction Vs. The State of Bihar, 2009(3) P.L.J.R. 507, in support of his claim that rejection of the kind, if not reasonable and based on material is no rejection in the eye of law. The Court seems to be in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the reasoning assigned by the Engineer-in-Chief is no reasoning at all. It goes without saying that it is an obligation of the Contractor to carry out the work with due diligence maintaining the quality and standard but what had not been done by the petitioner does not emerge from the impugned order. Sum essence of the order is that the respondent-State authorities are not willing to pay the bill of the petitioner for the work done by him, more so because part of the work carried out by the petitioner has been undone because of the floods which have come to affect that area from time to time. In totality, the impugned order dated 22-2-2005 contained in Annexure-2 is hereby quashed. The writ application 4 is allowed. It is hereby directed that the State will act upon the recommendation of the Liability Committee and take steps for payment to the petitioner, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )