THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6800 of 2005 M/S TRIBHUVAN PRASAD SINGH &COMPANY, Mahisauri, Jamui, P.S. and District- Jamui through its Managing Partner Sri Tribhuban Pd. Singh son of late MahavirPraad Singh, resident of Mohalla- Mahisauri, P.S. and District- Jamui. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary/Commissioner Building Construction Department, Bihar,Patna. 2. The Secretary Commissioner, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Circle, Bhagalpur. 5.The Executive Engineer, Building Division, Building Construction Department, Patna. ----------- 4 8.5.09 Petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming admitted due of Rs. 3,11,640/- in respect of repair of Court building of Additional District Judge, Jamui and annexe building of Civil Court building under four separate Agreements being Agreement nos. 258,259,260 and 261 in Standard Form II. Petitioner states that the work being completed, twice cheques were prepared for payment, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 respectively and then they were cancelled without any reason. Writ petition being filed, counter affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit, a very peculiar stand is taken. The stand is not that the work was not done. The stand is not that the 2 work was not satisfactorily completed. On those counts no dispute has been raised. The stand is that the Executive Engineer, who entered into agreements with the petitioner, had not followed the departmental guidelines and different provisions of the Bihar Public Works Department Code and as such payment could not be made. This Court is deeply amazed at the stand taken. The Executive Engineer is an Officer of the State. He is neither an officer or an employee of the petitioner or not related to the petitioner. If the work was done then the State is bound to pay for the same and cannot take a technical plea about the competency of its order, to order the work. The work was of public nature. It was not the private or personal work of the Executive Engineer. The work not being in dispute, State cannot deny payment. If the Executive Engineer did not follow the rule and regulation then State would be competent to take or rather would be obliged to take action against the Executive Engineer for not performing the duty properly but certainly on that count petitioner’s payment cannot with- held for the admitted work done. The second ground is that the matter has now been referred to Liability Committee. In view of what has been noticed above, the work not being disputed, I do not know what purpose would be served by the Liability Committee in re-examining the matter. This counter affidavit was filed in 2007 and now we are in 2009, what has come about of the Liability Committee is not known. Even otherwise it would have no difference, the work is not disputed. What is disputed is the authority to give the order for the work. That , in my view, is of no consequence. It is well stated principle of law that 3 no work is gratuitous. State cannot take work, enjoy the fruits thereof and then deny the payment. I, therefore, direct that within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the concerned Executive Engineer, he would ensure that the payment is made to the petitioner, as noted above. If the same is not made within the said period, the same shall be paid along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it was due till the date of payment. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. SINGH (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)