IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15956 of 2007 M/s Vinay Singh and Company, Chartered Accountant through its partner Vinay Kumar Singh, Chartered Accountant, Aashutosh Marketing Complex, 10, G.M. Road, opposite-Shyama Surgical, Radio Station Road, Darbhanga. ……… Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, District- Samastipur through the Vice-Chancellor. 2. The Comptroller, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur. 3. The Assistant Comptroller of Budget, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur. 4. The Registrar, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur. 5. The Director Administrator, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur. ……….. Respondents. -------------- Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Nadim Seraj, Adv. Counsel for the University :Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Adv. ---------------- 08 17.12.2008 The present writ application was filed by the petitioner, who is a firm of Chartered Accountant. The University allegedly entrusted the petitioner firm for carrying out certain audit related work. Petitioner alleges that he conducted a lot of work but then his bills were not paid and subsequently University cancelled his engagement on the ground that his engagement was illegal. The petitioner is not interested in continuing the work for an institution which conducts itself in such an arbitrary manner but prays for work done it is entitled to payment. This Court directed the University to get the matter examined and if it is found that some work has been done by the petitioner then petitioner was surely entitled to be compensated. An enquiry was held and a report submitted without confronting the petitioner with the findings on orders of this Court. The findings were then disclosed to the petitioner, who was granted an opportunity to file 2 his objections, which the University was to consider and then pass appropriate orders. In the mean time, this court directed that to the extent University admitted its liability it must pay forthwith. That matter also got delayed. Today, Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the University handed over a cheque for some part. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts the same without prejudice to his right to object to it. For final settlement, the University is enquiring into the matter and as Mr. Giri points out that the petitioner is required to fully cooperate in the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner assures that to the best of his client’s ability, they would cooperate in the matter. In the facts noted above, this Court can now only direct that the enquiry, which is being conducted by the University, must conclude within six weeks from today, subject to petitioner cooperating. I may only note that University is State for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution and as has been repeatedly held, it must act in a manner which infuses confidence in the people. It must not act arbitrarily or whimsically. It must do what is just and fair and not create unnecessary controversies. As a consequence of enquiry, if any further payment is due the same shall be made within two weeks of the report being drawn up and petitioner would have his remedies if it is created by any part of the report. This writ application thus stands disposed of. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)