IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15985 of 2006 M/S Ambajee Enterprises through its proprietor, Sanjay Kumar, Son of Shree Shyam Nandan Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Chitkohara (Bishnupuri), Police Station-Gardanibagh, District-Patna. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Department of Primary and Adult Education, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariate, Baily Road, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Primary and Adult Education, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariate, Baily Road, Patna. 3. The Director, Directorate of Adult Education, now known as “Directorate of Mass Education, Primary and Adult Education, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariate, Baily Road, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director, Jan Shiksha Nideshalaya, Directorate of Adult Education, 3rd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariate, Baily Road, Patna. 5. The Assistant Director, Jan Shiksha Nideshalaya, Directorate of Adult Education, 3rd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariate, Baily Road, Patna. 6. The Joint Director, Jan Shiksha Nideshalaya, Directorate of Adult Education, 3rd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariate, Baily Road, Patna. - Respondents. ----------- 02 22.05.2009 With reference to Annexure-1, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that petitioner having supplied goods worth of Rs. 1,60,085/- to the Directorate of Mass Education, Government of Bihar. He has not been paid. The admission of liability and the reason for non- payment is contained in Annexure-1 itself. Which clearly discloses it either lack of allocation of fund or because of short of allocation of funds payment could not be made. A counter affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit, additional ground for non-payment is mentioned. Essentially those relates to the department itself and it does not concern in any manner with the petitioner. The ground is purchase order and appropriate sanction was not taken and the entries of receipt of goods in the stock registers were not duly certified. All these reasons clearly show that these defaults and the derelictions were on part of the officers of the Directorate itself. A reference to Annexure-1 would show that 2 each bill has been separately and individually verified. What State now submits is that I had wrongly issued orders for purchase. I have purchased the goods and I have consumed it but as I had wrongly placed the orders I shall not pay for it. There cannot be anything more absurd. Such defence is not available to the State. Once it is not disputed that the goods have been received and consumed that would be destructive of rule of law. The department would be under obligation to pay the petitioner and recover the same, if they are not properly accounted, from their officers responsible for the same. In the counter affidavit, it is also stated that the Auditors, who audited the account and found various violations of rules and regulations in placing the orders and have recommended action against several persons by name. Regrettably, beyond quoting this in the counter affidavit nothing has been brought on record for showing initiation of action against those officers. Therefore, in view of the admitted position, I direct payment of the amount to the petitioner. As the matter has been settled by the audit only recently in 2004, after scrutiny of all amounts, I also direct that the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, from the time the payment was due to the time payment is made. Payment should be made within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order before the Director, Mass Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)