IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13871 of 2005 BISHWANATH PD.PARTNER M/S VIJAY Constrcution son of late Roshan Prasad, resident of village- Sihauta Bangra, P.O. Bangra, P.S. Maharajganj, Distgrict- Siwan. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner & Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar Sichai Bhawan, Old Secretariat,Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Siwan 5. Shri Narayan Prasad, the Superintending Engineer, Saran Canal Circle, Chapra,District Saran. 6. Shri Shiva Prasad, the Executive Engineer, Saran Canal Division Daraunda,District Saran at Chapra. 7. Shri Basudeo Bhagat, the Sub-divisional Officer, Saran Canal Sub-Division, Jalalpur,District- Saran at Chapra. 8. Shri Motilal Mandal, The Junior Engineer, Saran Canal Sub- division, Jalalpur, District Saran at Chapra. 9. Shri Upendra Kumar Sinha,The Junior Engineer, Saran Canal Sub-division, Jalalpur,Chapra, District- Saran. ----------- 2 27.3.2009 Petitioner states that he had undertaken road repair work being renovation of canal of Gandaki river. The estimated cost of work was Rs. 35 lakhs. Petitioner had done at contract value less 15% and as such the agreement was executed for Rs. 29 lakhs in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner states that he completed the work and has received only part amount of Rs. 16 lakhs .The rest is being denied to him because of malafide reason even the balance has not been endorsed in the measurement book. In the counter affidavit what is stated is that for the work done and accepted by the State, payment has been made, no further amount is due. In my view, these are serious disputed question of fact, which this Court cannot resolve in these summary proceedings. It 2 would be better for the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the concerned Superintending Engineer, who would get the same examined by an appropriate authority and take a decision in the matter within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before him. The report, if any, called for must be disclosed to the petitioner, who must also disclose the ultimate decision in the matter. The petitioner would have remedy as against the order passed after consideration of petitioner’s representation. In case any money is found payable to the petitioner, the same shall be paid within two months of the said order. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition stands disposed of. SINGH (Navaniti Prasad. Singh, J.)