IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11018 of 2007 M/S SARAN CONSTURCTION Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04 10.09.2008 The petitioner challenges the order of the Executive Engineer, as contained in Annexure-9, being order no. 131 of 2007 dated 06-06- 2007, by which the Executive Engineer has rightly imposed the fine for delay in the work. Petitioner submits that under the same very Executive Engineer several others similar works are being done, in which there is much greater delays, but no action had been taken against them. Whereas, this work of the petitioner, the petitioner had completed along with widening and strengthening of etc. work. Which took additional time, yet the Executive Engineer imposed substantial penalty and deducted it from the bills and transfer the money to the Finance Department in stead of retaining in the department, as was done in some other cases. Petitioner submits that all this is being done because he has raised objection against the Executive Engineer, which had been noticed by the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer, as is evident from Annexure-8, the communication under letter no. 1138 dated 27.04.2007 of the Chief Engineer. Petitioner submits that he had got the work of widening and strengthening the road in three parts, for two parts which were yet to be completed the agreements were cancelled. But, during pendency of the writ applications in this Court being CWJC No. 7736 of 2007 and CWJC No. 7612 of 2007, the Chief Engineer - 2 - extended the time and in that view of the matter the order of cancellation itself lapsed and in both those cases petitioner satisfactorily completed one of the works, but, in relation to other work the petitioner has filed a Contempt Application in this Court because of certain disputes raised. In the present case, the work has been completed, but, only to frustrate refund of money the money has been transferred to the Finance Department and as such this Court had directed that the Finance Commissioner be added as a party respondent. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Finance Commissioner. Having considered the matter, in my view, as the petitioner had been entrusted with the work in three parts and for two parts similar penalty orders were withdrawn by the order of the Chief Engineer, noticed above, it is only appropriate that the petitioner immediately represent the matter before the respondent-Chief Engineer, who would pass similar orders on consideration of the facts and if the order of penalty as enforced is withdrawn, the work already been completed, the Chief Engineer would ensure that the penalties which transmitted to the Finance Department be taken back and reimburse to the petitioner. All this exercise must be completed within two months of production of a copy of the order of this Court before the respondent-Chief Engineer. This disposes of the writ application. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)