IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3076 of 2007 ARVIND KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE DEOCHAND SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA URMILA COMPLEX NAYA TOLA CHHATA CHOWK DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. District Magistrate, Muzaffrarpur 3. Deputy Collector, Muzaffarpur 4. District Election Officer, Muzaffarpur. 5. Deputy Collector, Nazarat, Muzaffarpur. with CWJC No.3392 of 2007 ARVIND KUMAR SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . with CWJC No.4604 of 2007 ARVIND KUMAR SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2 10/02/2010 These writ applications were filed in the year 2007, to be précised on 12.3.2007, 19.3.2007 and 10.4.2007 respectively. As is the procedure in the High Court, two copies of the writ applications are served on the State Counsel before filing of the same. From the records it appears that no counter affidavit has been filed in this regard till date. Today when the matter is taken up a prayer is made on behalf of the State for grant of some time to file counter affidavit. The Court is not inclined to entertain such a request - 2 - in view of failure on their part to do so earlier. The petitioner had effected supplies and made arrangements for conducting elections which were held in the State of Bihar. The elections in question were Assembly election conducted in the year 2005, Parliamentary election thereafter as well as Panchayat election. After successful completion of the so called democratic exercise, the petitioner has raised his bills on the district administration. He has also brought in evidence on record to show that in the concerned file the District Magistrate who is also the District Election Officer has dealt with the claim of the petitioner. About 10% of the amount has been ordered to be reduced from the bills. 2% by way of service tax has also been ordered to be deducted but all these have remained in the file as no payments have been made till date. All the three writ applications are disposed of with a direction upon the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur that he shall call for all the related files, examine the same and decide the claim of the petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order. The Court fails to - 3 - understand that when large amount of money is released for conducting elections then how came when it comes down to settlement of bills the citizens are left either to knock at their doors over a period of time or allowed their claim to be reached before the Court for an appropriate direction. Pendency of such bills for a long period of time does not reflect well upon the district administration. Failure on their part to respond at the earliest is one of the reasons for such litigations coming before the High Court. They are cautioned at this stage but the Court may have to observe much more, may be in yet other appropriate case, if the occasion arises. These writ applications are disposed of as stated above. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)