IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2764 of 2010 Amit Kumar Versus State of Bihar & Ors. ----------- 05. 17.8.2011 It is a long drawn battle for the petitioner to beget the payments from the respondent State for water purifier which he has supplied to the Hon`ble Members of the Legislative Assembly and Council. The total number of water purifier supplied by the petitioner is stated to be 320 and payments have been made for 313. With regard to seven water purifiers there is some dispute in the sense that on verification they were not physically found at the place installed. Court can take judicial notice of the fact that when the installation was effected and when verification was carried out, there is a long gap, coupled with an election which was conducted to the Legislative Assembly and even may be the Council. If the defeated MLA or MLC have decided to walk away with the water purifier, the present petitioner cannot be held to be responsible for non-supply. The reasons or explanation offered by the opposite parties therefore may not stand. Since majority of the payments have already been made, petitioner is given liberty to produce evidence of installation with regard to seven water purifier to the Executive 2 Engineer, PHED at the earliest and on such evidence having been provided he shall ensure that payment for the rest is also made without insisting on physical presence of those water purifier because installation is sufficient evidence so far as the petitioner is concerned. The safety of those installed property is that of the State and not the petitioner. Court expects the Executive Engineer to do the needful within a period of eight weeks of the petitioner furnishing proof in this regard. Contempt application is disposed of with above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)