IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4778 of 2011 ----------- Rabindra Pratap Singh, son of Hari Narayan Singh, resident of House No.7, Manas Marg, West Shivapuri, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District and in the town of Patna …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum- Special Secretary-cum-Additional Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer, R.C.D. Patna South Wing, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Superintending Engineer, R.C.D. ,Central Circle, Chaju Bagh, Patna 5. The Liability Committee, Road Construction Department, Bihar 6. Executive Engineer, R.C.D. Patna, West Division, Telephone Bhawan R Block, Patna 7. The Assistant Engineer, R.C.D., Sub Division Pali at Patna West Wrk Division, R. Block, Patna. … Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : M/s. Shankar Dayal Sharma and Tripurari Sharan Pandey,Advocates For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C. 23 ----- 03/ 06.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging resolutions of the proceeding of the Liability Committee dated 09.02.2010 and 27.10.2005 as well as the order dated 05.07.2010, issued by the Chief Engineer, by which the admitted dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 4,24,752.00 against different execution of supply works has been rejected and also for a direction to the authorities to release the aforesaid due mount to the petitioner with interest as the petitioner has completed the works in question by raising loan on interest. The said resolutions have been challenged on - 2 - the ground that the same were taken arbitrarily, illegally and on wrong assumption of facts as well as in complete violation of settled principle of law pronounced by this Court in several decisions. 3. This is a matter with respect to different supply works, for which agreements were executed between the parties. Subsequently the dispute arose between them with respect to the amount due for the works done etc. 4. In the said circumstances, this matter involves disputed question of facts, which can be properly, adequately and efficaciously decided by the appropriate courts provided for it in law. The petitioner had sufficient, adequate and efficacious remedy available to him by way of arbitration as per the clause of the agreement as well as before the civil court where the matter in dispute can be properly considered and decided. Without taking the proper recourse available to the petitioner, he has filed the instant writ petition. 5. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter and this writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)