IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15686 of 2007 NARENDRA KUMAR, son of Ram Bachan Singh, resident of village – Rajputan Pachaina, P O – New Mohammadpur, P S f- Koilwar, District – Bhojpur, at present residing at Mohalla – Veer Kunwar Singh Nagar, Katira, Ara, P S – Ara Nawadah, District – Bhojpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Deputy Commandant, Bihar Home Guards, Bihar. 3. The Commandant, Bihar Home Guards, Bihar. 4. The Executive Engineer, Patna Building Division, Patna. 5. The Junior Engineer/Estimator, Ara Nagar Parishad, Bhojpur. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh. For the State : Mr. M K Pathak, AC to SC 17. For the Ara Municipal Corporation : M/s. Nityanand Mishra and Santosh Kumar. ---- 02. 26.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State and counsel representing the so-called Ara Nagar Parishad. Writ on behalf of the petitioner has been filed for a direction to make payment of a sum of Rs.2,29,322/- which he claims is rightfully due to him for carrying out certain repair works in the Head Office of Bihar Homeguards at Chhajubagh. According to the petitioner, this repair work was carried out in the year 2003-04 based on the oral direction of the then Commandant, Bihar Homeguards. In support of his claim the petitioner has brought few communications to show that some kind of work was carried out. All the communications are Annexures - 3 & 4. After the completion of so-called work petitioner has lodged his claim but there are no takers for such a claim. 2 A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed. They are denying the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there are no official records to corroborate the so- called repair work carried out by the petitioner as well as the payments demanded thereof. There is neither any work order issued at any point of time nor any tender notice was ever invited and the records of the office do not reflect the assertion of the petitioner of having carried out the repair work. It is probably to cover up such a situation that statement is made that the work has been done on oral instruction. Another aspect which makes the whole things suspicious is that petitioner has annexed Annexure-2 which is an estimate prepared by the Junior Engineer / Estimator of Ara Nagar Parishad, Bhojpur. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that he had carried out work at the Headquarters of Homeguards at Chhajubag why an estimate had to be obtained from a JE of Ara Nagar Parishad is not explained. It further makes the things little more suspicious because the estimated amount is also the claim of the petitioner. There are few occasions when estimate and claim matches penny to penny and rupee to rupee. This is not one of those cases where the claim of the petitioner is an admitted position and in that view of the matter it is not an open and shut claim for which direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner for payment. If the petitioner has other civil law remedies 3 available to him, he may explore the same, the Writ Court is not inclined in the above stated circumstances to exercise its jurisdiction in the given case. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )