Letters Patent Appeal No.659 OF 2007 ***** Against the judgment and order dated 22.2.2007, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.13565 of 2004. ***** 1. State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat Campus, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department (REO), Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Engineering Organisation (REO), Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation (REO), Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Works Circle, Patna. 6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Works Division, Biharsharif. 7. The Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Sub-Division Bihar Sharif, Nalanda. 8. The Liability Committee, headed by S.E., R.E.O. Work Circle, Rajbanshi Nagar, Road No.1, Patna. .... Appellants. Versus Chandradeo Prasad, Son of late Ramjee Prasad Chaurasia, Resident of Kazi Mohalla, Main Road, Bihar Sharif, P.S. Biharsharif, District Nalanda. .... Respondent. ***** For the Appellants: Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, G.A.-I with Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, A.C. to G.A.-I. For the Respondent: Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate. ***** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ***** S K Katriar & J.Saran, JJ. The appellants in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna are aggrieved by the order 2 dated 22.2.2007, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.13565 of 2004 (Chandradeo Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and others), whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the State of Bihar has been directed to ensure payment of a sum of Rs.63,000/-, recommended for payment by the Liability Committee to the petitioner (respondent herein). 2. A brief summary of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The respondent (writ petitioner) is a civil contractor. He had entered into a contract with the State of Bihar for execution of a civil work to carpet certain portions of road in the district of Nalanda. The work was executed during the year 1995-96. He did not receive the payment for the work he had executed leading to C.W.J.C. No.6634 of 1997 (Chandra Deo Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar and others). The same was disposed of by order dated 28.8.1997, whereby the departmental Secretary was directed to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) within a period of six months by a reasoned order. Consequently the departmental Secretary referred the issue to the Liability Committee which submitted its report dated 16.3.1998, wherein the Committee recorded two-fold findings. It observed that the respondent 3 herein had not executed the work in full, and he was entitled to payment of a sum of Rs.63,000/- for the extent of the work executed by him. The departmental secretary sat in appeal over the report of the Liability Committee, and rejected the entire claim on the sole ground that the respondent (writ petitioner) had completed part of the work. He is, therefore, not at all entitled to payment of Rs.63,000/-. The respondent challenged the same by preferring C.W.J.C. No.13565 of 2004, which has been allowed by the impugned order, whereby the State Government was directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.63,000/- to the petitioner (respondent herein). The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal raising grievance against the order of the learned Single Judge. 3. While assailing the validity of the order of the learned writ Court, the learned Government Advocate submits that the writ petition raises the issues relating to contractual claims and money benefits which cannot normally be entertained in writ jurisdiction. He also submits that the departmental Secretary has rejected the whole of the claim of the respondent for valid reasons. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the learned writ Court and 4 submits that the claim of Rs.63,000/-, as recommended by the Liability Committee, has not been declined by the departmental Secretary for valid reasons. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. After the submissions of learned counsel for the parties concluded, we requested the learned Government Advocate to withdraw the appeal but he expressed his inability to do so. We are mindful of the legal position that writ court normally does not interfere in contractual matters and/or money claims unless the dues are admitted, or the denial is a mere pretence to deprive the petitioner of his lawful claim. It is equally settled law that in such a situation the Court is entitled to examine whether or not denial of claim is a frivolous effort to deprive the claimant of his money claim on the jejune ground of maintainability of the writ petition. In so far as the present case is concerned, the admitted position is that the work was executed in 1995-96, and the first inspection of the work was conducted by the authorities three years thereafter. It is evident that a public road is subjected to constant wear and tear on account of its constant use by the vehicular traffic and also by weather conditions. 5 In view of the admitted position that the first inspection had taken place after three years of execution of the work, it would must have naturally undergone the routine wear and tear. The respondent authorities have nowhere and at no stage explained the delay of three years in conducting the inspection. Secondly, the Liability Committee has taken note of the factual position that the writ petitioner did not complete the whole of the work, notwithstanding which it has recommended for payment of Rs.63,000/-, being the value of the extent of work done by the writ petitioner. Thirdly, the departmental Secretary has brushed aside the claim by a very general observation that no payment can be made for execution of part of the work. Such a claim could have been rejected only if the departmental Secretary had come to the finding that the lapse of a period of three years did not cause any change in the condition of the work done by the petitioner, and also that part of the work executed by the petitioner has been of no use or value. In the absence of such findings in the order of the departmental Secretary, we are of the view that he has acted in an arbitrary manner in rejecting the recommendation of the Liability Committee. We are, therefore, of the view that the departmental Secretary has rejected the claim for the mere sake 6 of denial of claim and is a mere pretence, and is arbitrary. The extent of work done by the petitioner is undenied. Once the order of the departmental Secretary is set aside, the claim as recommended by the Liability Committee becomes admitted. The writ petition is not only maintainable but is fully maintainable for such admitted claims. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent (writ petitioner) shall be entitled to payment of Rs.63,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 % with effect from 1.1.1998 till the date of payment. We have denied to the respondent interest till 31.12.1997, giving enough time to make calculation and settle the bills. The departmental Secretary shall ensure its payment expeditiously. (S K Katriar, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 6th day of August, 2009. S.K.Pathak/(N.A.F.R.).