IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1354 of 2009 Jai Mangal Prasad, S/o- Late Ram Tapeshar Prasad, Resident of Naya Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Siwan Town, District- Siwan. ….. Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Energy Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary Energy Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector, Siwan. 4. The District Judge, Siwan. …… Respondents. ----------- Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Chandra Kant. Advocates for the Respondents :Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-III. Mrs. Nilu Agrwal, GA-10. ------------ 05 24.03.2009 The petitioner had filed his tender for supply of electricity to the Civil Court at Siwan. Pursuant to notice inviting tender issued by the District Magistrate, Siwan on 11.06.2006 (Annexure-1), petitioner was selected by the committee, which is apparent from the proceedings as recorded by the Collector, Siwan, as contained in Annexure-2. The petitioner then started supplying electricity under the said orders from July 2007. But thereafter, having received no payments, in spite of request made by the Collector, by the District & Sessions Judge, Siwan, by the Registrar of High Court and by the Law Secretary, petitioner approached this Court. Before this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating that there was no provision for making such a payment, as such, fund allocation could not be made. Neither this Court nor the petitioner is interested in this defence. Once the tender was issued for supply of uninterrupted electricity for governmental use 2 (Civil Court compound), a person acted in pursuant thereto, he is liable to be paid by the State, from where the funds would come is the look out of the State, on that pretext a person who has done his part of the job cannot be denied payment. He did not make arrangements for personal comforts of any particular officer. He was only doing otherwise the State Electricity Board was required to do, but had miserably failed to do. The payment is nothing but a substitute for payment of electricity bills. If electricity supply was not deficient then in normal course the Civil Court would have to pay the electricity bills, as raised by the Bihar State Electricity Board. On failure of the Board alternative arrangements being made. The payments are nothing but in alternative to the payment of energy bills to the Board. It is thus obvious that the funds that would have to come directly from the same head, as if it were with regard to payments of electricity bills. However, learned AAG-III informs the Court and a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed stating that the entire pending bill of the petitioner has been cleared after statutory deductions, as provided under the Service Tax and the Income Tax Act. So far as continuance of supply is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no authority has yet ordered the petitioner to discontinue the supply, petitioner had discontinued the supply on his own because of non-payment of his bills for almost two years. Now, petitioner is ready and willing to continue with the arrangement. This Court cannot say anything in that respect because that is commercial decision which the petitioner has to take. It is for the authorities, the District Magistrate- 3 cum-Collector, Siwan and the District & Sessions Judge, Siwan to take a decision in the matter, as well. As payments have already been made to the petitioner, nothing further remains to be done. The writ petition thus stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)