IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15136 of 2008 M/S CHITRAGUPTA CONSTRUCTION P Versus THE G.M.,NATIONAL BUILDINGS CO ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. D.K. Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate For NBCC Ltd.: Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha,Advocate For NRRDA: Mr. S.N. Pathak --- 10. 23.6.2010 The petitioner has come to this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. to allow the petitioner to complete the work in respect of agreement entered into on 29.3.2007 between the parties relating to Gurera to Koyla Road under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana in Sheikhpura District or release the security deposit, which was deposited in the shape of Bank Guarantee and deducted in the said work as also to pay the entire bill of Rs. 48,97,843.99 which was submitted against the Ist Running Account Bill. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, it is admitted that the petitioner has completed part of the work and submitted Ist Running Account Bill, which was processed and the petitioner was paid Rs.21,92,447/- for the said work vide Cheque No.739196 dated 4.6.2007. It is further stated - 2 - that an inspection was made by the Quality Enabler, who had suggested to revise the original detailed project report and accordingly a revised detailed project report was also submitted, according to which the matter was taken up for consideration and but no final decision could be taken till date. It is also stated that in the said circumstances, the respondent NBCC has been left with no option but to take steps for closure of the contract in question, keeping in view also the statements made in paragraph No.19 of the writ petition in which the petitioner has made specific statement that agreement in respect of work in question be closed and Security Deposit as well as other admissible dues be released. It is further stated that, accordingly, a final decision of closure has been communicated to the petitioner on 16.6.2010 with a request to submit a final bill so that payment of admissible dues can be made to the petitioner for the work done by it. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a grievance that the authorities have made huge deductions from the bill, which is not justified - 3 - in terms of the agreement between the parties. However, this Court in its writ jurisdiction is not in a position to adjudicate such matter. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit its final bill before the authority within two weeks from today and the authority shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of three months and any further amount found due shall also be paid within a month thereafter and the security deposit in the shape of Bank Guarantee, etc. shall also be released within the same period in accordance with law. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the action of the authorities regarding any deduction from the bill, shall have the liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of its grievances. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )