IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2773 of 2005 M/S RAJ CONSTRUCTION through Power of Attorney Holder (Mr. Sachindra Pd. Sinha) and one of the partner, Head Office Mohallah: Sheikhpura Post Office: B.V. College, Police Station: Shastri Nagar Patna: 14. ………………. Petitioner Versus 1. The Managing Director of Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation, Virchand Patel Path, Kautilya Hotel, Patna. 2. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation, Virchand Patel Path, Kautilya Hotel, Patna. ………………… Respondents. ----------- 2 08.05.2009 Petitioner had undertaken certain construction work for the Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation. It is alleged that in the midway the work was stopped because there was no further financial allocation. The petitioner sought refund of his earnest money and security deposit when the same was not being made he came to this Court. The writ petition was disposed of in April, 2003 directing the petitioner to make a representation before the Managing Director. The Managing director rejected the representation in June, 2003 stating that the matter relating to the work done by the petitioner in another contract in the same complex was being enquired into by the Vigilance and as such security deposit and 2 earnest money of this contract could not be refunded. The petitioner challenges the same decision on the ground that the two contracts are independent and consequently one cannot indefinitely wait for the vigilance. In the counter affidavit which has been made available by the leaned counsel for the Corporation the only stand taken is that the matter still with the vigilance and till the same is cleared the payment cannot be made. I am surprised the matter was referred to the vigilance some times in the year, 2002/2003 we are in 2009 if in the six long years vigilance has not submitted any adverse report, payments cannot be withheld. Moreover, there is no vigilance enquiry or complaint about the nature of work for which security deposit and earnest money refund is being sought. The complaint was with regard to another distinct work the two cannot be mixed up that would be unjust refusal to refund the amount. Learned counsel for the Corporation relies on the direction of the State Government that no payment would be made unless the matter is verified by the vigilance. That may be correct but the letter does not say that if the vigilance chooses to sleep, all the authorities 3 must also sleep. There being no justification for withholding refund of security deposit and earnest money. I direct that within one month of production of a copy of this order before the Managing Direct of Corporation, he would ensure the refund of security deposit and earnest money of the petitioner as sought for in the writ petition. With the above observation and direction this writ petition is disposed of. Bibhash (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)