IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10368 of 2011 SUSHEEL KUMAR ROUT, S/O SRI K.C. ROUT, R/O C- 14, JAGANPURA, EXTENSION NEW DELHI 110011, PROPRIETOR AARESS & COMPANY, NEW DELHI………………………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DARBHANGA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WESTERN KOSI CANAL (SAKRI DIVISION NO.1), P.O. DARBHANGA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 5. RUBICON INSPECTION SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.2,SUNEHARI BAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110011 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, JASPREET SINGH………………………………….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : M/s R.K. Rajan and Shashi Nath Jha, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, AC to AAG-2 ----------- 04/ 26.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (i) That a writ of CERTIORARI be issued to quash the order contained in memo no.982 dated May 3, 2011 issued by respondent no.3 whereby and whereunder he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of work of construction of structure of Canal Distribution System Prior to May 10, 2010, the knowledge of revocation of power of attorney in favour of petitioner executed. (ii) That a writ of MANDAMUS be issued commanding the respondents to resume/continue the left over work of construction of structure of canal distribution systems, Western Kosi Canal Division No.1, Sakri, Darbhanga. (iii) That the respondent no.3 be directed pay a sum of Rs.3 crores 75 lacs bill released for work. - 2 - (iv) That in alternative to the aforesaid prayer no.2 the petitioner be awarded appropriate compensation in congruent with the volume of work and payment whereof. 3. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that the petitioner had earlier filed C.W.J.C. No.1589 of 2011 for payment of the entire contractual dues of the petitioner with regard to completed works assigned to him and for restraining the respondents from disturbing/discontinuing the irrevocable Power of Attorney (Annexure-3 series) granted by respondent no.5 Rubicon Inspection System Private Limited. In the said case, the petitioner had raised a point that he was entitled to the aforesaid dues which were admitted by the authorities and hence the said writ petition was disposed of on 24.02.2011 (Annexure-11) with a liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation taking all the points raised in that writ petition before the Chief Engineer, Water Resources, Darbhanga (respondent no.3) and if such an application was filed before the said authority by the petitioner within 15 days from that date along with a copy of that order, the said authority was directed to decide the same after considering all the relevant materials in accordance with law by a speaking order within two months thereafter and if any amount including interest was found admitted and payable to the petitioner, the same would be paid to the petitioner immediately thereafter, but if any amount or interest was not found admitted and payable by the authority concerned, a speaking order in that regard must be passed by the said authority within the same time which the petitioner will have a liberty to challenge before an appropriate forum. - 3 - 4. It further transpires that thereafter the petitioner filed an application dated 07.03.2011 (Annexure-12) along with a copy of that order and other materials. In compliance of the order of this court, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Darbhanga disposed of the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 03.05.2011 (Annexure-13). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the said order before this court claiming that the points raised by the petitioner in his application before the said authority were not considered nor the said order was a reasoned order as it did not consider the further enquiry held in the matter which was in favour of the petitioner. He also averred that the said authority directed payment to respondent no.5 which was without jurisdiction and malafide and the order of this court was not complied in its true letter and spirit. In this connection he relies upon a decision of a Bench of this court in case of Braj Kishore Tiwary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2011 (2) P.L.J.R. 97. 6. From the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the earlier writ petition as well as the instant writ petition concerns payment of contractual money which according to the petitioner is due, whereas the respondents dispute the entitlement of the petitioner to receive such money. Hence, this is a disputed question of fact with respect to payment of contractual money. 7. So far the claim of the petitioner is concerned, from a perusal of the impugned order dated 03.05.2011 passed by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Darbhanga, it is quite apparent - 4 - that it is a detailed order considering the points raised by the petitioner and giving reasons for passing the said order. It was clearly found in the said order that the agreement of the authorities of the department was with respondent no.5 and the authorities were throughout dealing with the attorney of respondent no.5, namely Jaspreet Singh and in that view of the matter payment was made to respondent no.5. Hence, it was held that the petitioner was not at all entitled to the relief claimed by him. 8. It further transpires that the real questions in issue are as to whether the petitioner or Jaspreet Singh was the Attorney of Respondent no.5 and as to who was entitled to receive the contractual amount on behalf of Respondent no.5 from Respondents nos.1 – 4. Hence being aggrieved by the impugned order of Respondent no.3 and for an appropriate decision on these points the petitioner should have approached the Civil Court having appropriate jurisdiction. But instead of filing a suit for the said relief, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and that too without impleading Jaspreet Singh independently and admitting that Jaspreet Singh was Director of the Firm Respondent no.5. 9. So far the aforesaid decision of a Bench of this court in case of Braj Kishore Tiwary (Supra) is concerned, it concerns university laws as well as non-compliance of the order of High Court due to which matter was remanded. Here in the instant case, the matter is with regard to payment of contractual amount whereas from the aforesaid findings it is quite apparent that there is no question of any non-compliance of the order of this court. Hence, the said case law is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. - 5 - 10. Since the matter is with regard to the payment of the alleged contractual dues to the petitioner which was not admitted by the respondents, this court had specifically directed vide order dated 24.02.2011 (Anneuxre-11) that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the Chief Engineer he will have a liberty to challenge it before an appropriate forum. That forum is definitely not the forum of the High Court, where such issues cannot be raised, but the petitioner had been adamant in coming again and again before this court with frivolous grounds. Such attitude is highly deprecable. 11. Thus this writ petition being absolutely frivolous and misconceived is dismissed. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)