IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6478 of 2008 SONE LAL YADAV S/O SRI LAKSHMI YADAV, R/O VILLAGE MOHISOT, BLOCK KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN EAST PS- KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN DISTT- DARBHANGA--------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NIRMAN BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF-CUM-ADDL.COMMISSIONER-CUM SPL- SECY. ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER YATAYAT UP BIBHAGH, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPT. DARBHANGA. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD DIVISION, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPT., DARBHANGA 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPT. CIRCLE DARBHANGA---------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. S.N.Yadav, Advocate & Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate For the State: AAG-11 ---------- 2 12.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent State authority for carrying out repair and restoration of traffic on the stretch of road located at Darbhanga. It is his stand that he has completed the work as per the agreement well within the specified time. Part of the payment came to be made but the balance of Rs. 83,330/- has not been paid in absence of requisite fund available at that point of time. Recommendation and verification of the work are there at the subordinate level. The matter subsequently was referred to liability committee and the liability committee has found the claim of the petitioner to be in order. The relevant recommendation of the liability committee has also been brought on record as annexure-5 to the writ application. A recommendation for payment is there in terms of annexure-6 but before the actual payment vide order dated 3.11.2003 the Engineer-in-chief, Road Construction - 2 - Department has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that certain laid down procedure had not been followed in award of the contract. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision rendered in the case of M/s Raghav Construction vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2009(3) PLJR 507) in support of his proposition that the petitioner cannot be denied payment for the lapses on the part of the officials. No amount of excuse for infirmity committed on the part of the respondents can be made a ground for not making payment to the petitioner, if the work done by him is not in dispute. The stand of the respondent State that the rejection order contained in annexure-7 has been passed by the competent authority in the light of laid down procedure in this regard and since there are certain omissions which make the claim doubtful, the petitioner cannot be made payment of the balance amount of Rs. 83,330/-. The Court has gone through the material which has been brought on record in support of the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner including that of the liability committee. The Court has further looked into the ratio decided in the above case and has come to a considered opinion that the decision or reason given by the Engineer-in-Chief contained in annexure-7 is a laboured decision. Even otherwise the petitioner cannot be denied payment if there is some omission on the part of the - 3 - departmental authority. Mere suspicion cannot be a ground for non-payment and it cannot be sustained in law. The additional factor which weighs in favour of the petitioner is that a three members committee which is known as liability committee did not find anything amiss with regard to the bill and the claim of the petitioner. In view of above, annexure-7 is quashed. Direction is given upon the respondent authority to make payment of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. This writ application is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)