IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.764 of 2010 VISHWANATH CHOUDHARY S/O LATE MEIN CHOUDHARY R/O SARARI, PO-KHAGOUL,PS- SHAHPUR, DISTT- - PATNA--------------------------PETITONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECY,ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. PRINCIPAL SECY. ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUHT BIHAR (TRAFFIC)ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BHOJPUR ROAD SUB-DIVISION, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SHAHABAD ROAD DIVISION, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARMTNET, ARA---RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 14.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has approached the High Court earlier in CWJC No. 3144 of 2008. The reason for invoking the writ jurisdiction was non-payment of bills of the petitioner with regard to three contracts which are awarded to him between the period 1992-93 and 1993-94. The matter took its own time and it finally travelled to the liability committee. The liability committee accepted the claim of the petitioner or the responsibility of the State for payment with regard to two contracts in toto but the third claim was rejected. After hearing the petitioner as well as the State the writ application was allowed vide order dated 13.2.2009 and the said order is annexure-13 to the writ application. The Court was of the opinion that in absence of any cogent explanation by the respondents State the petitioner was entitled for payment of interest by way of compensation at the rate of 6% per year since the payment was due till the time the payment was made. With - 2 - regard to the third claim the matter was relegated for reconsideration before the Chief Engineer, South Bihar (Traffic) Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar. On reconsideration of the matter the third claim of the petitioner has also been allowed. The petitioner is back with the present writ application seeking relief that he should be paid interest on the third component as well and some interest should also be paid on delayed refund of the security amount. So far as payment of interest on the third claim is concerned, looking at the background to the dispute coupled with the fact that the Court with regard to two other non-payments of bills allowed payment at the rate of 6% interest for unpaid claim of the bills and the third component or claim was relegated for re- adjudication. There is no reason why the petitioner should also not be granted similar relief even in the third case. Petitioner has sought certain information from the respondents under Right to Information Act and the response is that the matter is under consideration of the Law Department, Govt. of Bihar and a decision would be communicated on receipt of their opinion. The Court would like to say categorically that the State has obligation to pay 6% interest even on the third bill from the date it was due till the date it is paid. Claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on the security amount is rejected for the sole reason that there was a - 3 - prayer for this kind made in the earlier writ application and the Court did not pass any order or remained silent. If that is so, then that part of the claim is barred by res judicata. This writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)