IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2725 of 2011 ----------- Manoj Kumar, son of Sri Babujan Yadav, resident of Muhalla Prabhat Colony, P.S. K-Hat, District Purnea … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar. 3. The Chief Engineer, National Highway Sub-Division, Visheshwasaraiya Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar. 4. The Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle, Purnea. 5. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Purnea …. Respondents --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Shankar Das, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Narendra Kumar Jha, A.C. to S.C.XIII --------- 04/ 18.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner only for payment of dues claiming that he had completed the works allotted to him according to the agreement executed between the parties. 3. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of ABL International Ltd. and another vrs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2004) 3 S.C.C. 553 as well as several decisions of this Court, e.g. in case of Ram Pravesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2006(4) P.L.J.R. 318; in case of Amit Pharmaceuticals vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported 2 in 2007(1) PLJR 253; in case of Bishwanath Prasad vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2007(1) PLJR 258; in case of Ram Pravesh Prasad vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2007(1) PLJR 273; in case of M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2007(1)PLJR 276; in case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BPBCC vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. , reported in 2007(1) PLJR 751; and in case of Ram Lakhan Yadav vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. , reported in 2007(1) PLJR 787. 4. I am afraid that the said decisions are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as they were not merely for payment of disputed contractual dues rather they were against the main issues challenging the decisions of the State Government or its authorities and similar matters and the payment was sought as a consequential relief. Only in those circumstances the undisputed amount was directed to be paid, along with other reliefs in the abovementioned cases. 5. However, in the instant matter, the question is completely different as the sole relief claimed by the petitioner is for payment of dues, which, according to materials on record, appears to be not admitted by the authorities. In such a case, it has to be first seen by the authority as to whether the work has been done and that too satisfactorily. This involves a disputed question of fact. Furthermore if the amount claimed is not paid on any of the aforesaid grounds, the proper remedy for the aggrieved person is to raise such a claim in a suit before the appropriate court and not by 3 way of filing a writ petition in this High Court. 6. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in this matter and this writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )