IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1180 of 2009 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 15220/2008) 01. The State Of Bihar 02. The Industrial Development Commissioner, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna 03. The Joint Secretary Industry Department, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna 04. The Director Handloom and Sericulture Industry Department, Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna 05. The General Manager, District Industry Centre, Patliputra Industrial Area, Patna ….. Appellants/Respondents Versus Babban Prasad Singh, son of Late Bindeshwari Singh, proprietor of Hitech Engineering resident of Veriety Complex, Sheopur, Mahendru, P.S.- Pirbahore, District-Patna ….. Respondent/Petitioner For the Petitioner:- Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, GP-12 & Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, AC to GP-12 For the Respondent:- Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate & Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. ---------------------------------- 05. 03.08.2011 The L.P.A. arises out of the order dated 27.02.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 15220 of 2008. The unofficial respondent petitioner in the writ petition has filed the writ petition aggrieved by inaction of the State with withholding the payment for contract of supply of 150 Handlooms with its accessories. The main reason for withholding the payment was with reference to the fact that unofficial respondent had supplied the Handlooms which was not inconformity with the standards. It 2 has been contended before the learned Single Judge that earlier a report was submitted vide Memo No. 2285 dated 14.08.2008 but as such report was not satisfactory, hence a fresh committee of Technical person was constituted vide Memo No. 2932 dated 26.10.08 to examine as to why the amount have not been paid taking note of the report of enquiry that the Handlooms supplied was not inconformity with the standard. The appellant State has also brought to the notice of the Court an order dated 06.02.2009 annexed with the Supplementary affidavit filed in the writ petition in which ground has been taken by the State that as the unofficial respondents has not supplied the material inconfirmity with the standard a notice was given to the respondent with regard to recovery of the amount. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed the recovery order. The said ground has been opposed by learned senior counsel for the respondent stating that the recovery order was the part of the writ petition and the same was brought by the State by filing a supplementary affidavit, hence the learned Single Judge had an occasion to go through the order and has observed by quashing the enquiry report that there shall be no recovery of 3 the amount, and balance payment shall be made within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of the order as the recovery order could be enforced upon the unofficial respondent at a belated stage. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed such direction stating that in the technical report which has been subsequently submitted, it is found that the goods supplied were not up to the quality of standard, hence a notice has been issued for recovery of the amount. The main ground of the State is that the unofficial respondent has not chosen to question the recovery order. However a suit has been filed before a trial court for recovery of the amount and the said suit was contested by the respondent. It is evident that the recovery order dated 06.02.2009 has been brought on record by way of a supplementary affidavit by the State and it has become a part of the record. The learned Single Judge has gone through the material on record and come to a conclusion that the enquiry report did not specify that the Handlooms supplied are lesser in quality and as stated above by the learned counsel, a 4 committee was constituted to examine the material, but as the report of the first committee was not satisfactory, the State has appointed second committee consisting of technical expert but in view of the fact that there is no reason forthcoming from the State in appointing the second committee of the expert and also for not accepting the report of the first committee, in absence of such reasons, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge is perfectly legal and cannot be interfered with. Accordingly the L.P.A. stands dismissed. P.K. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J)