IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.643 of 2006 M/S SHARDA CONSTRUCTION, S.S. LANE,MITHAPUR, PATNA, THROUGH DEEPAK KUMAR SON OF SRI NAKUL SINGH @ ANUKUL SINGH. THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHARDA CONSTRUCTION, S.S. LANE MITHAPUR, PATNA RESIDING IN MOHALLA AASHIYANA NAGAR, PHASE I, PLOT NO.139-C AASHIYANA NAGAR, P.S SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT & TOWN PATNA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED TELECOM DISTRICT, PATNA, R-BLOCK, PATNA. 2. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (PLANNING), OFFICE OF BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, TELECOM DISTRICT PATNA. 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER/SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED,TELECOM KANKARBAGH. 4. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER PHONES KANKARBAGH, PT-20. 5. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, CABLE BAHADURPUR EXCHANGE, KANKARBAGH, PT-20. 6. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (PHONE)/CABLE, PATNA CITY. 7. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER PHONES, PATNA CITY. 8. THE JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, PATNA CITY. 9. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (A/T)/JTO/ ACCEPTING TESTING, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM,BIHAR. 10.THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, CABLE, BIHAR RAJENDRA NAGAR EXCHANGE, PATNA. ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4. 7.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 2. Petitioner firm is a works contractor registered with the Post and Telegraph Department of the Union of India. It entered into agreement executed by and between the petitioner and the Principal General Manager Telecom District on behalf of - 2 - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. The two works agreement is contained in Annexures 1 and 1/1. Petitioner having executed the works contract in lieu of the two agreements submitted the bills, which is contained in annexures 2, 3 and 4. The execution of works to the satisfaction of all concerned is not denied in the counter affidavit. The only reason which has been indicated in the counter affidavit for not making the payment pursuant to the bills of the petitioner is that he is made accused in a criminal case bearing R.C. Pat 2004(A) 0030 dated 6.10.2004. 3. From the counter affidavit, it does not appear that any of the authorities of the B.S.N.L. ever disputed the execution of the works by the petitioner to their satisfaction. The payment however is with held by them only on account of pendency of a criminal case which can hardly be a ground to stop payment of the works executed by the petitioner as the criminal case is not even connected with the works for which payment is due. - 3 - N.H./ 4. In the circumstances, I direct the Principal General Manager of the B.S.N.L. to examine the matter and if he is satisfied that the works have been executed to the satisfaction of the authorities then the payment be made to the petitioner as early as possible in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)