IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12288 of 2005 YOGENDRA PANDEY SON OF LATE LAXMI NARAYAN PANDEY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST DEP. P.S. JHANJHARPUR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI,. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETGARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI. 3. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, MADHUBANI 4. SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER JAINAGAR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, JAINAGAR 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ANDHRATHADI, MADHUBANI 7. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, MADHUBANI 8. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM, MADHBANI. 9. TREASURY OFFICER, MADHUBANI. ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. Anand K. Ojha & Ravindra Kumar Singh For the State :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, A.C. to AAG II ------- 3 03/09/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The reason why petitioner was made to come to this Court was issuance of two orders contained in annexures- 1 & 2. By these orders, the Block Development Officer, Jainagar has directed recovery of certain amount from the petitioner for the so called incompleted execution of work assigned to him as the executing agency since petitioner was posted in the - 2 - said Block as a Panchayat Sewak at the relevant time. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was saddled with the responsibility of execution of certain projects and construction of certain building in the Block in question and an advance money was also released in his favour. But since some of those projects were not completed, therefore, a new person was authorized to execute the left over work and this recovery is basically in relation to the un-finished work and non accounting of advance taken by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the liability shown against the petitioner is an act of malafide as the left over work was hurriedly assigned to the same Junior Engineer who had carried out the measurement of the left over work as alleged by the petitioner and he deliberately did not show the actual work which had been carried out by the petitioner due to his own reasons as he would have been the beneficiary. The measurement or exercise was carried out behind the back of the petitioner. Petitioner brought those infirmities to the knowledge of the District Magistrate who ordered the Deputy Development Commissioner to - 3 - look into the matter and a kind of direction came to be issued in terms of annexure-7 for re-measurement in the presence of the petitioner but before the same could be carried out, impugned order contained in annexures 1 & 2 had already come to be issued. From the nature of the dispute and the time frame when this Court has been asked to decide and adjudicate upon, much time has elapsed. I am sure, left over work must have been completed by now since the project related to the year 1999 and thereafter the un- finished work, as would be evident, was carried out in 2003. Re-measurement or verification, therefore, at this stage will not serve any purpose, in the opinion of this Court. However, if there is still a mechanism by virtue of which some exercise can be carried out and if the petitioner can furnish requisite evidence in his possession, to show the extent of work which he had completed in lieu of the advance taken by him, then the same would be required to be verified at the local level. This Court has no mechanism to adjudicate such disputes in a writ application. - 4 - Let the petitioner appear before the Block Development Officer, Jainagar with a request in this regard for re-verification as well as adjustment of accounts which the petitioner may have to offer based on the cogent evidence to the extent of work which has been done by him and which can be adjusted against the outstanding amount. The Court cannot express a final opinion on the issue. Since it is an old matter, the Court advices the respondents to complete the exercise within a period of six months if petitioner cooperates. The final position on recovery will be subject to outcome of the exercise as above. This writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)