IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5288 of 2009 SANJEEV ELECTRICAL WORKS PVT.LTD Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS ----------- 02. 24.04.2009 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Chief Engineer (Transmission) dated 09.03.2009 as contained in Annexure-3. It appears that the eight high tension towers of Bodh Gaya, Biharsharif transmission line at location No. 131 to 138 collapsed on 01.12.1997 due to unprecedented storm. Petitioner was immediately asked to undertake the work for emergency repairs under administrative approval of the Chairman of the Bihar State Electricity Board, pursuant to which letter of intent dated 29.12.1997 was issued being emergent detail conditions of work. As payments were not indicated but assurance was given that they would be suitably set by the work. It appears that it took one long year for the Board to decide upon rate of payment and ultimately petitioner was asked to sign an agreement and confirmatory work order was issued one year after the work was completed. Petitioner states that he was forced by circumstances to accept the agreement and was paid a paultry amount which was on basis of regular work under normal circumstances and not of 2 special rates for emergent work. He submitted several representations and ultimately came to this Court. This Court by order dated 30.11.2008 as passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9629 of 2008 directed the Chief Engineer(Transmission) of the Board to consider and decide the matter and pass speaking order in that regard. This order of the Chief Engineer (Transmission) is in consequence of that order passed by this Court. Petitioner states that from perusal of the said order itself would show that the high tension line having collapsed, the work was emergent. Emergency was writ large from the fact that neither conditions would be stipulated from the work nor rate fixed for the work nor tender issued for the work and now it does not lie in the mouth of the Board to say that it was not emergent work. The stand of the Board as appears from the order is that the petitioner having entered into an agreement and received payment accordingly, he can not make any grievance. It may be noted that the detailed work order was issued one year after completion of the work and the agreement was also entered into one year after completion of the work. Petitioner draws my attention to the very initial order given on 29.12.1997(Annexure-2, page-63) in which he submits that mere perusal of the said letter would 3 show that it was an emergent work that is clearly mentioned in Clause-3 of the said letter. Therefore, it is not open to the Chief Engineer (Transmission) to state that it was not an emergent work. Petitioner states that the rate for emergent works are different as there are different considerations involved. In my view, the Respondent Chief Engineer (Transmission) prima facie failed to consider these aspects which were material. This Court under the said circumstances would consider it appropriate that the petitioner under the said circumstances makes a representation in detail to the Chairman of the Bihar State Electricity Board within a period of fifteen days from today who would reconsider the entire matter and take a decision which is appropriate to the facts involved. This Court is so directing because if work is taken on emergent basis with a promise to pay and then if the service provider is not adequately paid, it will set a bad precedent. The result would be that the people would be reluctant to take up emergent work and the sufferer would be the citizen. It is expected that the Respondent Chairman would consider the entire matter and take a decision within one month thereafter. Petitioner if so desire would be given liberty of hearing as well by the Chairman and the Chairman 4 would dispose of the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order duly communicated to the petitioner. With these observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)