IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5781 of 2010 1. M/S SHALIGRAM SINGH, A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NEW AREA, AURANGABAD (BIHAR) AND REGIONAL OFFICE SURESH COLONY, HAZARIBAGH (JHARKHAND), THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHALIGRAM SINGH S/O LATE YADUNANDAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE - DEOKALI, P.S - DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD (BIHAR). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY , ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (TRAFFIC),NORTH BIHAR WING, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, null ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT,ROAD SUB DIVISION, SUPAUL. 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT,ROAD SUB DIVISION, SUPAUL. ----------- 2. 05.04.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. It is submitted as per the original agreement the petitioner was required to execute the works of width of 3.05 meters of the road. During pendency of the contract, it is alleged, with the revision of the contract, this was altered to an area of 5.5 meters width. The petitioner claims to have completed the works according to the original agreement of 3.05 meters width. He is ready to execute the works as per the revised area if the rates are revised. Without considering this aspect the contract has been cancelled on 6.3.2010. Learned Counsel for the State places reliance on Clause 11 of the agreement that the petitioner was required to comply with any changes/instructions that may be given during pendency of the contract. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to the proviso to the Clause to urge that unless there was a written order for such variation, he shall not be entitled to the payment. The matter appears to be resting primarily on issues of facts. The petitioner has filed a representation to the Secretary of the Department appended at Annexure 10. Let the representation be disposed by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order to facilitate judicial review. If the respondents are satisfied that the petitioner has in fact executed and completed works as per the original agreement, this Court expects that in all fairness due payment shall be made in accordance with law without going into the question of his failure to execute the subsequent directions altering the original contract unless there be written instruction for the same. Any action of the respondents with regard to the earnest money deposited by the petitioner shall necessarily abide by the justification of the respondents for passing the impugned order. This application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)