IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9396 of 2008 M/s Vikash Construction through its partner Sachidanand Roy, S/o Shri Raja Prasad Roy, resident of Mohalla – IAS Colony, Bailey Road, P S – Rupaspur, Dist – Patna - Petitioner VERSUS 1 The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat Building, Patna 2 The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna 3 The Engineer-in-Chief –cum- Special Secretary –cum- Additional Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna 4 The Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna 5. The Superintending Engineer, N H Circle, Road Construction Department, Patna 6. The Executive Engineer, NH West Division, Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna - Respondents *** 05 20.03.2009 The petitioner had undertaken repair work of the famous Koilwar Rail-cum-Road bridge on the National Highway. Owing to technical difficulties, he was granted four months extension by the competent authority. The work could not be completed even in that time and was completed after taking another time of about 6 months. Petitioner having completed the work, thus, wanted refund of his earnest money and security and finding no way, he came to this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that competent authorities having already granted six months extension, it was not found proper to grant any further time. As such, further extension was refused and the penalty for delayed performance of the contract was rightly invoked. Petitioner has challenged this. All other payments have already been made by now. Petitioner has brought on record the office notings of the 2 file in question as Annexure-9. These have been obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act. With reference to office notings, it is pointed out that right up to Chief Engineer, all authorities had recommended that this was a case of “compelling circumstances” considering which, extension ought to be given. Consequence was that if extension was granted, the penalty clause was not liable to be invoked. When the matter was then put up before the Secretary, Road Construction Department with all the work, all the notings and all the facts, as noted by all subordinates and senior officials, it was set aside in simple one line that six months’ time was granted earlier, which was sufficient, no extension was required. As such, recommendation of Chief Engineer granting extension was not approved. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that this shows complete non-application of mind. The authorities, under whose supervision the work was being done, had taken pains to point out the reasons for delay, as apparent from the order sheet annexed. It was pointed out that as it was an important bridge on the National Highway for completing the repair work in time both lanes could not be simultaneously blocked. It was one lane at a time and that was the primal reason of this inordinate delay. In addition to this, while executing the work from time to time additional work was also being assigned simultaneously. All this was brushed aside without considering whatsoever much to the detriment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that finding this arbitrariness, petitioner again applied to the Secretary virtually for a 3 review. The Secretary, again got interested and looking to the facts, called for reports from the authorities. Again all the reports were favourable to the petitioner including that from the Chief Engineer, but again by a one line consideration, it was rejected on the ground that a decision has already been taken, which was not being changed. Petitioner, thus, submits that the manner in which the whole matter has proceeded clearly shows non-application of mind at the highest level. He submits that even though the Secretary was not required to deliver a judgement but at least when matters called, he was required to communicate the findings of facts, as recorded by competent authorities, otherwise even though the proceedings have now been made transparent by virtue of Right to Information Act, it serves no purpose. In my view, considering that the Chief Engineer is not only a senior responsible officer but a technical officer to understand technicalities better. His view required respect and respectful treatment. I may also point out that under the provisions of P.W.D. Code and circular issued thereunder, it is the authority of the Chief Engineer to grant extensions. These have to be kept in mind by the Secretary. It is no doubt that he is a superior officer but in matter involving technical knowledge, due regard has to be given to the technocrats by the bureaucrats. I, therefore, set aside the decision of the Secretary and send the matter back to the Secretary and direct him to reconsider the matter in view of the observations made above. In case, he requires any clarification, he would seek the same from the petitioner and 4 communicate his decision to the petitioner preferably within a period of 45 days from the time the certified copy of this order is presented before him by the petitioner. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)