IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15161 of 2007 Anuj Kumar Singh, son of Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Anugrah Puri Colony, P.S. Gaya Muffasil, District-Gaya. …… Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Work Circle, Gaya. 5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Work Division, Gaya. ….. Respondents. ----------- 03 10.04.2009 This writ petition was filed on 27.11.2007 and has been pending in this Court. In spite of the writ petition was pending neither any instructions were given nor any counter affidavit has been filed. On 27.02.2009, the matter was taken up and noticing the fact it was adjourned to inform the respondents to file a counter affidavit, no counter affidavit was filed. The matter was taken up then on 27.03.2009 and again neither any instruction was given to the State counsel nor has any counter affidavit been filed. Learned counsel for the State states that he has several times sent reminders for instruction but none are coming forthwith. In such a situation, this Court has no option but to proceed on the pleadings available on record, which has not been controverted. Heard the parties. It appears from Annexure-1, that the tender was issued on 16.11.1998 for repair of Tekari-Rakasia Road by the Executive 2 Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Work Division, Gaya. Petitioner responded and was ultimately selected and a contract was entered into for executing the said work being Agreement No. 3F2/1998-99 dated 11.02.1999, under the signature of the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Work Division, Gaya. A reference to Annexure-13/1 would show that the petitioner satisfactorily completed the work on 30.03.1999. In 1999, what remained to be paid to petitioner was Rs. 3,04,349/-, for which a cheque was issued but was not honoured by the Treasury. Since, then petitioner has been running from pillar to post for securing his payment. Ultimately, the matter was examined and referred to the Liability Committee, for enquiry and determining the liability of the State, in that regard the report of the Liability Committee is Annexure-13/1. The Committee consisted of the Superintending Engineer and two Executive Engineers, who gave their report on 10.01.2007 admitting State’s liability to the extent of Rs. 3,04,349/-, as claimed by the petitioner. In spite of this, merely because of lack of fund allocation by the State, even though, the liability is admitted and due to be paid for over 10 years payment is not being made. In the facts aforesaid, the liability being admitted, it is time that the State realized that they cannot be kept the contractors waiting payment indefinitely, such an action would be per se arbitrary and against public interest. I, therefore, direct that the respondent-Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna would ensure that the 3 payment, as admitted by the Liability Committee in respect of the petitioner be paid to the petitioner after seeking fund allocation in that regard within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before him. Failure to pay the amount in the said period of two months would entail a further liability by way of compensation @ 6% per annum from the time when the payment was due till the time payment is made. The amount of compensation paid from officers responsible for the delay, but that would not delay the payment being paid to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)