IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 15331 of 2008 Sudhir Prakash son of late Vijay Prakash Narayan Singh, resident of Rajendra Nagar, Road No 12, Ampra Plaza, Flat No 304, P O : Rajendra Nagar, P S : Kadamkuan, Dist : Patna - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary Bihar, Patna 2 The Development Commissioner, Bihar, Patna 3 The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 4 The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 5 The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Literacy Committee, East Champaran 6 The District Development Commissioner-cum-Vice Chairman, District Literacy Committee, East Champaran, Motihari 7 The District Education Officer-cum-Secretary, District Literacy Committee, East Champaran, Motihari 8 The District Accounts Officer, Motihari - Respondents ----------- 4 06.02.2009 This writ petition clearly discloses how financial powers are abused by the State officials. Contracts are issued, work done but then when time for payments come, all hell breaks loose. For reasons, this Court cannot discuss, payments are sought to be denied, if not delayed on one pretext or the other. It is invariably once the contractors come to this Court, authorities suddenly wake up and put up an edifice of good Samaritans and volunteer to make payment. It is most regrettable and reprehensible manner in which State conducts itself. As pleadings are complete, writ petition, with consent of parties, is taken up for disposal. Pursuant to tender issued by the District Literacy Committee, East Champaran under the 02nd stage of Sampurna Sakcharta Programme published in newspapers, petitioner applied for supply of books. After scrutiny, petitioner was favoured with order dated 14.04.2005 for supply of 4,71,893 copies of the book in question at the 2 rate of Rs 8.36 P per copy. In the supply order, it was mentioned that if there is delay in finalizing payment procedure, no interest would be payable. Even though the supplies were to be urgently made, the authorities took their own time in finalizing the prints which caused considerable delay in making the books ready. It is not in dispute that by 15.09.2005 all but 20 thousand books were supplied and the remaining was also supplied by 11.02.2006. Accordingly, petitioner submitted a bill for Rs 40,77,795.20 P vide Bill No 327 dated 03.04.2006. Now starts the problems for petitioner. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Motihari, who was the controlling authority, then called for reports from respective Subdivisional Officers where deliveries were to be made. Finding nothing unfavourable in report, he then constituted a Committee of all Subdivisional Officers concerned to reexamine the matter. Here again, the Committee submitted its favourable report to the District Magistrate on 24.11.2006. Now nothing remained to be done except payments to be made and earnest money to be refunded but again for reasons undisclosed and for reasons which this Court cannot discuss, payments were not made. When pressed for payment, the DDC, Motihari wrote a letter to the petitioner on 06.02.2008, almost two years after supplies were made, to show cause why 2% penalty of the earnest money be not realized for delayed supply. It may be mentioned here that the earnest money was only Rs 5 lacs and 2% thereof comes to Rs 10,000/-. Why this Court is noticing this fact is only to show that for mere penalty of Rs 10,000/-, a payment of Rs 40 lacs is being withheld. There cannot be anything more 3 preposterous. The petitioner replied pointing out the difficulties created by the State itself which caused the delay and pressed for payment and as is usual, authorities again went in deep slumber. Now, it appears when the matter reached back the District Magistrate and Collector, he started digging at the very foundation of the order, an order which was duly tendered, executed and awaiting payment. He started enquiries into how the order was issued, what was the Government Programme etc etc. I may point out that once pursuant to a tender issued, an order is issued, a person supplies goods which are accepted and utilized then both under Law of Contract and Law of Sales of Goods, the authority cannot refuse payment as it is established that no services rendered is gratuitous. The authorities had a right to reject when the supplies were made but having appropriated the supplies, used the same, that right of rejection is forfeited and supplies have to be duly paid for. This peculiar stand of the State, at this belated stage, raises many questions with which we may not deal in the present. Being fed up with the attitude of the district authorities, petitioner approached this Court for payment which was pending for over two years and with which petitioner had nothing to do and for the delay of which petitioner had nothing to do. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is now said that on 12.01.2009, that is almost three years after bills were submitted for payment, full payment has been made. The only reason for delay in making payment, as disclosed, is that matter required thorough scrutiny and that the work order did not contemplate grant of interest of delayed payment. In other words, what 4 the authorities say is that they could have sat over petitioner’s money to the extent of about Rs 37 lacs ad infinitum with no liability to compensate the petitioner. There cannot be anything more arbitrary and preposterous for a State instrumentality bound by Article-14 of the Constitution of India to take such a stand. Let us not forget that we are governed by Constitution and Article-14 is a protection to all persons against vagaries of State and this is one. From the facts noted above, it would be seen that once the Committee appointed by the district authority, which consisted of all the Subdivisional Officers concerned, submitted its favourable report on 24.11.2006, nothing remained but to make payment and payment was still not made. Thus, I can only hold that upholding payment for almost two and a half years thereafter was mala fide in law if not mala fide in fact. It is only if there is a reasonable explanation for delay that the Courts may not interfere but where the delay is such abnormal delay with no reasonable explanation, a party is entitled to a just compensation. To compound it when the petitioner asked for a refund of his earnest money of Rs 5 lacs, a more curious stand is taken in the counter affidavit that earnest money will be refunded when demanded as if earnest money is the property of State. Let the State be reminded that no sooner the contract is executed, the earnest money is a money held by the State in trust for the contractor for being refunded to the contractor and any delay in refund thereof can give legitimate cause for action for compensation for delayed refund. Thus, on all counts, it is found that without any reasonable explanation, State has held back the money due to the petitioner unreasonable for 5 over two and a half years, petitioner is entitled to be compensated. Having considered the matter, in my view, the State now would be liable to refund the earnest money and for the delayed payment of bill of the petitioner and the delayed refund of earnest money, State would be liable to compensate the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the time the report of the Committee was submitted on 24.11.2006 till the payments are made. This amount would be paid to the petitioner within one month from today and shall be recoverable from officers who are liable for delay in any proceeding that may be instituted by the State but that would not delay payment of the compensation, as above awarded. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)