IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11770 of 2007 Md. Mumtaz Alam, Son of Late Hazi Munnu Saheb, M/s Chunnu Tent House, Station Road, Nawada, P.S. Nawada, District- Nawada. ……… Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. District Magistrate, Nawada. 3. The Deputy Divisional Commissioner, Nawada. ……. Respondents. ----------- 03 30.01.2009 The petitioner was directed by the District Election Officer to supply certain articles like Generator, Tent and Lights etc. for the conduct of election in 2005. After he submitted his bills the same as usual was not being paid to the petitioner, the petitioner has come to this Court. While the matter was pending in this Court the District Magistrate, Nawada awoke up and took up the matter for payment, which was long over due. As per the counter affidavit, it is stated that bills submitted by the petitioner were inflated and for incorrect period. The Collector scrutinized the same and passed orders for payment, which payment the petitioner has recently received. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the order of Collector as appended as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit shows that firstly that the payment has been made on the basis of rate fixed in the year 2004 and not as per the rate fixed in the year 2005, secondly the Collector has arbitrarily reduced the period without any cogent reason. It is pointed out that the same very Collector even with regard to 2004 election, when payments were to be made to this very petitioner, did the - 2 - same thing and directed for payment at the rates of 1999. This Court finds the same can be unexplainable without proceeding any further or without commenting upon the conduct of the District Election Officer- cum-Collector, Nawada. I direct that the bills of the petitioner ought to be calculated at rates applicable for 2005, as admittedly supplies related to the year 2005. Petitioner would however make representation with regard to the period or any other dispute that he decides to raise before the Collector, who would decide the matter from one month from production of a copy of this order before him and in case payments is due ensure that payment is made within one month thereof. This Court is at pains that when work was done in the year 2005 and payment was due why was the payment not made immediately and the matter kept pending forcing the petitioner come to this Court. For this conduct on the part of the respondents, it is directed that payment already made to the petitioner that are due to be made to the petitioner would be paid along with interest @ 12% per annum. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)