IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14124 of 2007 WITH CWJC No.14125 of 2007 Dwarika Singh, S/o- late Rohan Singh, Resident of Village- Eroo, P.S.- Wazirganj, District-Gaya. ………. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. The Treasury Officer, Gaya. ………….Respondents. ----------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate. Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. AAG-II -------------- 05 21.10.2008 The petitioner had undertaken to execute certain contracts for the government. It had entered into agreement which was singed by the Respondent-Executive Engineer. The writ petitions were filed at the stage when the running bill was submitted by the petitioner was scrutinized and payment ordered but the same was stopped by the orders of the District Collector. The writ petitions ostensibly challenged the authority of the District Collector to interfere in the matter. It is not in dispute now that in relation to both the writ petitions payments have now been made, as per the measurement book, which had earlier been withheld. Petitioner’s grievance now is that he abandoned the work midway because of bills were not being paid, which was reciprocal obligation on part of the State. His grievance now is that the period of agreement having expired he is not interested in completing the work any further. He thus requests that payments with regard to 2 enhanced prices and payment for work done be ordered by this Court and the contract closed. Having considered the matter, I can only note that once payment were not duly made by the respondents to the petitioner then State cannot insist on the petitioner doing his part of the bargain. The obligations under the agreement are co-terminus and simultaneous. The petitioner has to do the work and raise the running bills, which State is under obligation to pay but surely the State cannot insist that State’s obligation to pay would stand deferred but petitioner must complete the work. If payment is not regularly made the petitioner cannot be expected to do the work regularly. Thus, the petitioner had right to withdraw from the contract. Thus, now remains the controversy with regard to balance payment. In my view, no direction can be issued in vague and uncertain terms. It is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respective Engineer giving all details and seeking payment for work done. If such a representation is filed the same would be disposed of by the concerned Engineer within a period of 15 days and in case it is found that any payment is due the same would be made to the petitioner within a period of one month, thereafter. Needless to say that once the agreement stands terminated respondents would consider the desirability of refunding the security of the petitioner. This, in my view, finally disposes of the writ petitions. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)