IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16212 of 2007 Ram Sagar Pathak, son of Sri Kant Pathak, resident of Village Mathar, Police Station-Nayagaon, District-Begusarai. ………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, Begusarai. 2. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai. 3. Commissioner, Water Resources, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. Block Development Officer, Matihani, Begusarai. ………Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Prasad Verma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Adv. Mr. Ram Naresh Roy For the State : A. C. to A.A.G.-9 ------------ 02. 13.02.2009 The petitioner was entrusted with work of installing Borings in Mathihani block of Begusarai District. He completed the work in the year 1991 but no payment was made. As apparent from the writ petition and the counter affidavit, petitioner had entered into a contract for sinking Borings in Sahebpur Kamal in the District of Begusarai as well. He had serious differences with Block Development Officer and other Officers there which ultimately led to institution of a criminal case in respect of his work at Sahebpur Kamal. This gave an excuse to the respondent to stop all payments of the petitioner and put the money in civil deposit. Petitioner was then tried by Court and for lack of evidence he has - 2 - been acquitted. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the judgment itself would show that he has been acquitted because certain material witnesses were not examined. It is curious to note that such statement is made in the counter affidavit because it is the State that was the prosecutor and the material witnesses were the State Officials themselves and the State having not examined its own witnesses, blame is being sought to be put on petitioner who was the person being tried, a vary curious stand by the State. Though what is more curious is that in the counter affidavit on behalf of the State and sworn by the Block Development Officer, Mathihani on 23.06.2008, he does not mention that in the meantime, the Collector had ordered physical verification of the Borings done in the District. That survey had been done on 25th January, 2008 and it was found that all the Borings were working. The report had already been submitted to the Block Development Officer. Petitioner in his rejoinder has annexed B.D.O’s communication dated 14.07.2008 to all the contractors to make their claims before him. He then recommends payment to the D.D.C. and Annexure-13 would show that pursuant to orders of the Collector, Begusarai even a amount of Rs. 6,32,058/- is being sought to be withdrawn from the civil deposit for making payment to the petitioner for the work of Boring - 3 - done. The Collector has also on 16.12.2008 sought permission of the Principle Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar to withdraw the amounts for payment. Thus it is clear that State’s liability towards petitioner stands admitted. It was only a dispute being there between the parties which ultimately led to denying legitimate payments to the petitioner which is otherwise admitted. Now the dues stand admitted. I, therefore, direct the District Magistrate cum Collector, Begusarai to ensure payment of the petitioner to the extent as indicated above by him within one month from the date of production of the copy of this order before him. If payment is not made within a period of one month as aforesaid, the same shall be paid along with interest @ 6% per annum from the time it was due till the time it is paid. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)