IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4326 of 2007 ANWAR HUSSAIN SON OF LATE MOHAMMAD MUSLIM RESIDENT OF MUHALLA OFFICER’S COLONY, MIRCHAIBARI, P.S. KATIHAR, DISTRICT KATHIHAR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPRTMENT, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF CUM ADDITIONAL SECRETARY CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTIN DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROAD CIRCLE AT PURNEA. 5. THE SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROAD SUBDIVISION, KORAHA, KATIHAR. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, KATIHAR. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Counsel & Mr. Najeeb Ahmad., For the State :- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, A.C. to AAG IV ------ 2 15/02/2010 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2485 of 2004. Reason for filing the earlier writ application was for non payment or release of Rs.2,43,484/- which is the pending bill for the work done by the petitioner on behalf of the respondent Road Construction Department. Certain basic material had been brought on - 2 - record to show that there was recommendation for payment but since it was not done, the petitioner had to approach this Court. Taking note of the submissions and the evidence the writ application was disposed of with a direction upon the Secretary Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to take a decision by passing a speaking order. Speaking order in question has been passed and is dated 10.07.2006 which is Annexure-1 to the present writ application. By virtue of the said impugned annexure the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for the reasons indicated therein. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is a cursory kind of rejection without application of mind to the true facts and record. The decision seems to be based on pre-mind set and that the reasons assigned for rejection is not attributable to any failure on the part of the petitioner but has a reflection on the way the government or its authorities have worked in this matter. Three reasons have been assigned. First reasons is that no proper evidence has been shown to show that an - 3 - appropriate advertisement in the news paper was made with regard to the tender in question because there is no material available with the Department of Information and Public Relations. Second reason is that measurement book has not been filled up in the light of the guidelines issued by the department of Vigilance dated 31.12.1983 and failure on the part of the Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer makes the claim doubtful. Learned counsel for the State submits that on due verification and emergence of the above stated facts, the claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected. If the claim seems to be doubtful, the State has no obligation. But from the reading of all the three reasons assigned, noted above, none of the failure, if at all, is attributable to the petitioner. If the respondents authorities do not carry out their responsibility with regard to the work in question within the guidelines and parameters laid down by the Vigilance Department, the petitioner cannot be punished for the inaction or failure on the part of the respondents. If no work had been done by the petitioner or if any serious objection was raised with regard to quality of work and - 4 - quantum of work, then there could have been an occasion to entertain objections of the State but the reason assigned by the Secretary is not fit ground for not entertaining the writ application of the petitioner. The reasons assigned being extraneous and arbitrary per se stands quashed. The matter is remitted back to the authorities concerned for taking an appropriate decision in the matter and make payment to the petitioner within the time frame of three months from the date of receipt or communication of a copy of this order. This writ application is allowed with the direction as above. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)