IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6539 of 2009 M/S R.S.PANDEY & COMPANY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 23.7.2009 The petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter No.173 dated 22.2.2008 issued by the respondent no.5 whereby agreement dated 22.2.2008 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent authorities in relation to the repair 9.00 to 24 K.M. of N.H. 77 Muzaffarpur – Sitamarhi road has been rescinded and also the supplementary Agreement No.33F-2 of the year 2006-2007 and the amounts deposited toward security deposit and earnest money deposit has also been forfeited. The petitioner had moved this Court vide C.W.J.C. No.6592/08. In the aforesaid writ application an affidavit was filed that the State Legislature has enacted the Bihar Public Works Contract Dispute Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Bihar Act 21 of 2008’. According to the petitioner the total money forfeited by the State comes to around Rs.65/- lacs on which he is paying interest on account of non-payment of bill by the Government. If the Tribunal had become functional, the grievance of the petitioner could have been considered. The State counsel submits that the Tribunal will start functioning within three months as the Chairman and Member of the Tribunal have already been appointed. However, sitting has not yet commenced as certain formalities are to be done still. 2 It is unfortunate that in spite of earlier order of this Court dated 2.9.2008 passed in C.W.J.C.No.6592/08, the Tribunal has not yet started functioning. This Court disposes of the writ application with liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy before the Tribunal. However, in case the learned Tribunal decides that the security money including the earnest money was wrongly forfeited, the petitioner may make claim against Department / Government for interest at the bank rate, for the period of delay in constituting the Tribunal and its functioning. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)