IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.773 of 2006 Sunil Kumar Singh, son of Sri Sita Ram Singh, resident of Ram Niwas, Naya Bazar, Police Station and District Samastipur……….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Engineer in Chief, Building Construction and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Chief Engineer (North Bihar), Building Construction and Housing Department, Patna. 4. Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Saharsa. 5. District Magistrate, Saharsa…………………………..Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Utsav Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, AC to GP-16. ---------------------------------- 03/ 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 08.05.2004 passed by the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar whereby it was ordered that only a sum of Rs.48,534.00 would be payable to the petitioner and also to direct the respondents authorities to pay balance amount to the petitioner in accordance with report of the Liability Committee dated 03.10.2002 after directing the respondents authorities to pay interest for the delayed period on the amount due to the petitioner from the date the said amount became payable till the date of payment and for other consequential reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier he filed C.W.J.C. No.5525 of 2001 which was disposed of by a Bench of this court vide order dated 30.04.2001 after - 2 - giving following observations: “Since the matter is pending before the Engineer-in-chief, respondent no.6, this application is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a detailed claim before the respondent no.6. In case such a claim is filed the respondent no.6 shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and shall dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law within three months from the date of filing of such claim. In case the claim of the petitioner is found genuine, the same must be paid to the petitioner without unnecessary delay.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the said order was not complied he filed M.J.C. No.682 of 2004 which was disposed of on 22.02.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner also claims that the Liability Committee submitted its report dated 03.10.2002 with respect to the balance amount but the authorities concerned ignored the said report and did not make any payment to the petitioner and finally the impugned order was passed by the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar. 5. The petitioner has raised several questions which touch the provisions of the agreements in question which are as follows: (i) Agreement No.26F2 of 1993-94 dated 19.01.1994 wherein the work was of barricading for inauguration of 5th Women’s Play Festival at Saharsa (Police Lines and Patel Maidan) by Hon’ble Chief Minister, Bihar on 22nd, 23rd and 24th January, 1994. The estimated cost was of Rs.38,078.00. (ii) Agreement No.33F2 of 1993-94 dated 08.02.1994 wherein the work was of repair - 3 - of road from P.W.D. inspection Bunglow to Thana Chowk, Saharsa on the eve of the visit of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Bihar dated 10.02.1994. The estimated cost was of Rs.49,965.00. (iii) Agreement No.34F2 of 1993-94 dated 09.02.1994 wherein the work was of repair of road from Veterinary Hospital to P.W.D. (S.B.) at Saharsa on the eve of the visit of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Bihar on 10.02.1994. The estimated cost was of Rs.49,965.00. 6. In such contractual matters several questions of facts are involved which require evidences also and hence it cannot be properly decided here. Hence, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to avail the opportunity of Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the authority concerned for Arbitration as per the provisions of the Act. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)