IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14997 of 2009 1. TEJ BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE RAM NARAIN SINGH SENIOR ADVOCATE, 56, REGENCY GARDENS APARTMENT, NEW PATLIPUTRA COLONY, P.S.- PATLIPUTRA, DISTT.- PATNA. 2. RAM KISHORE SINGH S/O LATE RAJESHWAR SINGH, ADVOCATE AT PRESENT RESIDING END OF KAMTA PATH, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, P.S.- BUDHA COLONY, DISTT.- PATNA. 3. SHITANSHU SHEKHAR MISHRA S/O SRI BIJAY KUMAR MISHRA R/O VILL.- 25, REGENCY GARDENS, P.S.- PATLIPUTRA, DISTT.- PATNA. 4. BRAJ NANDAN TIWARY S/O SRI HARIHAR PRASAD TIWARY R/O VILL.- BHAROKHAR, P.S.- JAGDISHPUR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR. PETITIONERS. Versus 1. BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, BORING CANAL ROAD, NEAR- RAJAPUR PUL, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. 2. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SANSKRIT SIKSHA BOARD, B.C.ROAD, NEAR RAJAPUL, PATNA. 3. SECRETARY, BIHAR SANSKRIT SIKSHA BOARD, B.C.ROAD, NEAR RAJAPUL, PATNA. RESPONDENTS. ----- For the petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Senior advocate. Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Awadhesh Prasad Sinha, Advocate. -------- 18/ 04.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board and its authorities. 2. This writ petition was filed for payment of professional bills for all the four petitioners which, according to the petitioners, had been illegally withheld. However, subsequently on 03.08.2010, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 was satisfied with what he had already received from the Board and that all the dues of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have now been paid. Hence, this writ petition remains only with respect - 2 - to dues claimed by petitioner no.4. 3. So far the claim of petitioner no.1 is concerned, up till the 5th counter affidavit, the respondents did not state that there were any dues of the Board with petitioner no.1 and only in their 6th counter affidavit filed on 16.09.2010 it was stated on behalf of the respondents in paragraphs 7-10 thereof that a sum of Rs.30,000.00 was recoverable from petitioner no.1. This claim of the respondents-Board is denied by learned counsel for the petitioners who also stated that such a claim was never raised by the respondents and hence they cannot be allowed to raise such claim in this writ petition, especially after passing of order dated 03.08.2010 by this court. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that earlier the respondents had never claimed any amount recoverable from petitioner no.1 and the respondents have raised this plea only in their 6th counter affidavit filed in this writ petition. Hence, such a disputed claim of recovery of amount cannot be made and entertained in the instant writ petition. The respondents may exercise their options before any appropriate forum, if they feel it necessary. 5. In 4th supplementary affidavit filed on 04.11.2010 on behalf of petitioner no.1 it has been stated that amount of fees has been paid to petitioner no.1 after deducting tax at source as per the professional income of petitioner no.1, but T.D.S. certificate for the amount so deducted has not been granted to petitioner no.1. It - 3 - is quite apparent that respondents concerned, having admittedly deducted the amount at source, are duty bound to grant T.D.S. certificate to petitioner no.1 so that he may produce it before the Income Tax authorities with respect to his professional income as non-production of such certificate can have very serious consequences against petitioner no.1. In the said circumstances, respondents-authorities are directed to hand over T.D.S. certificate of the entire amount of tax deducted at source by them to petitioner no.1 positively within a period of two weeks from today. 6. So far the claim of petitioner no.4 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not claiming Bill-D which is part of Annexure-9 series at page-51 of the writ petition and is only claiming Bill-C of the said Annexure at page- 45 which is with respect to preparation of counter affidavits and written statements. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents-Board submits that petitioner no.4 was working as retainer of the Board on the dictates of Ex-Secretary of the Board Sri Nivas Chandra Tiwary without any authorisation of the Board and hence the said amount is not payable to petitioner no.4 and furthermore even the retainer has not counter signed those bills. Hence, learned counsel for the respondents-Board submits that even the aforesaid Bill-C of petitioner no.4 is not payable. 8. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that according to provisions of Bihar Sanskrit - 4 - Shiksha Board Act, Secretary is the Chief Administrative Officer and admittedly on his direction written statements and counter affidavits had been prepared without any objection having been raised by the Board to it, hence it cannot be held that the bill for preparation of such counter affidavits and written statements were not payable. So far the preparation of counter affidavits and written statements is concerned it is directly connected with the Board and if on the direction of the Secretary of the Board, the same had been prepared, there is no requirement of any counter sign of the retainer. 9. In the said circumstances, respondents are directed to pay the amount detailed in Bill-C of Annexure-9 at page 45 of the writ petition to petitioner no.4 expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. 10. With the aforesaid directions/observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)