IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15743 of 2007 THAKUR UDAY SHANKAR SON OF DR. GIRISH KUMAR THAKUR, PROPRIETOR NEW GIRISH PHOTOSTAT AND VIDEOGRAPHY, COURT COMPOUND, CHOWK, SAMASTIPUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KON WAZITPUR, P.S. SAMASTIPUR (M) DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DIRECTOR, STATE EDUCATION PROJECT, BELTRON BHAWN, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO- ORDINATOR, STATE EDUCATION PROJECT, SAMASTIPUR 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION-CUM- DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, SAMASTIPUR. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay. For the State :- Mr. J. P. Karn, AAG IX & Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, A.C. to AAG IX ------ 2 25/03/2010 Based on a notice issued by the Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Co-ordinator, Samastipur as well as on the rates quoted by the petitioner, the petitioner was awarded work of providing electricity through generator for running the office facilities and some equipments like computer, Xerox machine etc. of a kind on agreed rates therein. Annexure-1 is stated to be the basis for award of work. Petitioner is stated to be the successful bidder and he - 2 - was saddled with the responsibility. All seems to have been well till the order dated 03.06.2007 came to be communicated to the petitioner. By virtue of this order contained in annexure-3, the petitioner was directed to stop supplies with effect from 1.6.2007. The petitioner has decided to approach this Court in the present writ application. The Court does not want to get into the nitty-gritty of the argument whether the writ can be maintained on a dispute of the present kind but from the pleadings it is apparent that some kind of relationship existed for providing certain service by the petitioner. One of the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that annexure-3 has been issued without any notice, show cause or any information in this regard. He does not have the reason why such an action has been taken. It was in this background that the Court directed the respondents to file counter affidavit and justify their action. They have stated that there was inadequacy of service provided by the petitioner. Repeated complaints to him to improve the quality of service did not beget the required - 3 - results. It was in this background that a notice dated 30.4.2007 came to be issued to the petitioner in which he was categorically told that the work awarded to him for supply of electricity is going to be withdrawn from 1.6.2007 and the reasons are indicated therein. It also indicates that the respondents are going to float a new tender with new terms and conditions and the petitioner, if he is so advised, may participate in the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that he has no knowledge about this notice contained in Annexure-A. It is also the position that after termination the respondents have gone ahead with fresh settlement and settlement has been made in favour of yet another person. The petitioner did not choose to participate in the new arrangements when it was made. It is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that he had no knowledge of such a development because the petitioner was closely linked with the state of affair and the working of the authorities being supplier of power to them on regular basis. There was circumstances for the respondents to go for new arrangements for which there was adequate notice to - 4 - the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is warranted with Annexure-3 as such. The other aspect of the matter is settlement of the bill of the petitioner in terms of the arrangement and the agreement. In this regard, in the counter affidavit there is a statement that payment at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month has been made to the petitioner from November, 2005 till May, 2007 but this does not satisfy the petitioner because he says that he had made supplies in excess of the above amount as the points which were provided and being consumed was over and above the arrangement which was made. This is a kind of dispute which cannot be looked into or decided on the basis of the pleadings. This requires actual verification of facts. If the petitioner so likes, supported by authentic evidence in this regard, may lodge his claim and the respondents would be well obliged to respond to the same within a time frame. If no payment is required to be made to the petitioner, then the petitioner would be duly communicated of such fact. If the claim of the petitioner is entertainable, then appropriate steps should be taken by the respondents for settlement of the dues and for making - 5 - payment to him. This writ application stands disposed of with the observation aforesaid. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)