IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13394 of 2006 NIKHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.& ANR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 06.8.2008 Petitioners had entered into an agreement with the Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Chapra, through the Executive Engineer thereof being Agreement No. 80 F2 -96 – 97, the estimated value whereof was Rs. 15,46,193/-. The petitioners, while the work was going on, were paid the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th on account bills after measurement of work, as ordered to be executed by the then Executive Engineer. The 5th on account bill was then prepared in the measurement book after due measurement of actual work done and the same was certified by all concerned Engineers after proper site verification. In respect of 5th on account bill after full scrutiny it was found that an amount of Rs. 2,32,328/- was due and payable to the petitioners. After making certain deductions, as were permissible , the net payable was work out at Rs. 2,11,218/- for which even a cheque dated 28.3.1998 was drawn up but thereafter no payment was made nor the cheque was delivered to the petitioners. In the counter affidavit, it is now stated that due to certain reasons pending payment of 5th on account bill, 5th final bill was drawn up. The said measurement book has been produced in the Court and a copy thereof was given to the petitioners. This appears to have been originally drawn up in the year 2004 but was re-scrutinized in the year 2005 by which the substantial amounts payable were altered as is evident from the measurement book itself. 2 On behalf of the petitioners, with reference to the agreement and the figures in the 5th final account bill ,it is pointed out that the only difference between the fifth on account bill and the 5th final bill is thus quantified at work actually done and measured and verified while preparing 5th on account bill has been arbitrarily reduced the area as estimated in the agreement at the first instance without acknowledging actual work done at the ground level, which,as stated above, was measured and verified and duly entered in the measurement book while preparing 5th on account bill. The contention of the petitioner, prima facie, appears to be correct. The result of this reduction is that as against the amount payable to the petitioners as per 5th account bill , a small amount is shown recoverable from the petitioners on account of 5th final bill. Though , the stand of the petitioners, prima facie, appears to be correct I do not think it is proper for this Court in the Writ jurisdiction to finally adjudicate this matter. I, therefore, direct that the petitioner should immediately file a detailed representation along with a copy of the order of this Court before the concerned Chief Engineer, who shall examine the matter and take a decision thereon. This Court can only remind the learned Chief Engineer that the State must act fairly and bonafidely while dealing with legitimate claim of a citizen and should not take legalistic approach to the problem raised by the citizen to deny their legitimate claim. In other words, learned Chief Engineer would be expected to act fairly and 3 reasonably. The Chief Engineer would decide the matter after hearing the petitioner and disclosing to him any explanation that may be offered by the concerned Executive Engineer in support of alteration of account as done in the measurement book. The decision must be taken within one month of filing of the representation along with the order of this Court and must be communicated to the petitioner in writing giving reasons in support thereof. In case it is found that any money is due and payable to the petitioner, the learned Chief Engineer would ensure that within a month thereafter the same is paid. This, in my view, disposes of the writ petition finally. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh)