IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12679 of 2007 ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, son of Shri Rajendra Prasad, R/O Jai Prakash Nagar, By-pass road, PS – Jakkanpur, Distt. Patna, at present village – Mahanand Bhawan Purandarpur, P S – Jakkanpur, Distt. Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, P S – Sachivalaya, Distt. Patna. 2. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, P.S. Gardanibagh, Distt. Patna. 3. The Executive Engineer, Animal Husbandry Department, P.S. Gardanibagh, Distt. Patna. 4. The Assistant Engineer, Animal Husbandry Department, P S – Gardanibagh, Distt. Patna. 5. The Secretary, PWD, Bishwashwaraiya Bhawan. ----------- 02. 24.02.2010 The claim for which the petitioner has filed the present writ application is with regard to construction of a boundary wall of the campus of Animal Husbandry and Production Centre located at Patna. A tender for the said work was floated in March, 1992 by the Veterinary Department. Work order was issued to the petitioner in September, 1992. In other words, the work in question came to be completed when concerned department or cell was still in existence. It is only much later in the year 1996 that the cell was merged with Building Construction Department and it is not known as to why the petitioner kept silent on the issue since 2004 when he first approached the High Court in CWJC No. 1712 of 2004. Obviously with the time span etc. the Court did not pass any categorical order but granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Director, Animal Husbandry Department. Obviously no payments have been made to the petitioner thereafter as well because of the intervening 2 circumstances. The Cell as noted above was merged with the Building Construction Department and every thing was vested in the said department. When second time over the present writ application has been filed, the stand of the respondent Building Construction Department is that the records pertaining to the Cell in question were handed over to the Gardanibagh Building Division sometime in the month of September, 1999 but there is reflection of many of the records with regard to the kind of work awarded to the petitioner and the kind of payment is to be made. In absence of availability of records the Building Construction Department is not shouldering its responsibility. With the stand of the respondents in the above stated counter affidavit and the period for which the claim has been made, This Court also has difficulty in passing any direction for payments. If the petitioner has any remedy other than by a writ application, he may avail the same but the Court is not inclined to exercise its extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the above noted circumstances. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )