IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.796 of 2009 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 7712/2008) 01. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 02. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri (Rohtas) 03. The Superintending Engineer, Durgawati Circle, Bhitari Bandh, Chenari, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 04. The Executive Engineer, Durgawati Right Side Canal Division, Chenari Rohtas (Sasaram) 05. The Deputy Director, Quality Control Division, Dehri (Rohtas) ….. Respondents-Appellants Versus M/S Komal Construction, Chhawani, Mohalla Ward No.1 Bhabhua (kaimur) through its partner Komal Singh son of Late Bachnu Singh, Ward No.1 (Chhawani Mohalla) Bhabhua District- Kaimur ….. Petitioner- Respondent For the Appellants:- Mr. Piyush Lall, AC to AAG-1 For the Respondent:- Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate ---------------------------------- 06. 02.08.2011 The matter arises out of the dispute between the appellant State and the respondent- contractor with regard to levy amount of Rs. 15,41,119/- vide Memo No. 430 dated 4.10.2007 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) issued by the Executive Engineer, Durgawati Right Side Canal Division, whereby the respondent has been asked to refund the amount alleged to have been excess paid following the direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7309 of 2006. 2 The main contention on behalf of the State Mr. Piyush Lall is that there was a dispute with regard to execution of the work by respondent- contractor and also with regard to the quality of the soil, whether it is soft and hard. As the disputed question of facts have been involved in this case the respondent has to approach the concerned Tribunal under the Bihar Public Works Contract Dispute Tribunal Act, 2008. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in view of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7309 of 2006 a representation has been made on the question of demand. Accordingly the said representation was disposed of. This Court is of the opinion that there are disputed question of fact which has to be decided by an individual Forum as this Court is not an appropriate Forum under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to go into the disputed question of facts. Under the aforesaid circumstances it would suffice if the appellant State is directed to approach the Tribunal under the provision of the Act indicating facts of its case and the Tribunal shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. Liberty 3 is also granted to respondent contractor to contest the matter before the Tribunal by filing an appropriate reply. It is also made clear that Tribunal shall dispose of the matter as per the law and till the order is passed by the Tribunal no coercive steps shall be taken against the respondent herein. With the above observation the L.P.A. stands disposed of. P.K. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)