IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4805 of 2007 M/S HYPER SASCON LTD., Registered Office 804, Jagat Trade Centre, Frazer Road, Patna thr. its Managing Director, Shyamjee Sharan, S/o Sri Krishna Nandan Sharan, Road No. 6C, Gardani- Bagh, Patna. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. District Commputer Centre Society, Patna, Bankipur Inter School (Girls) Campus, Patna. 3. District Magistrate Cum Chairman District Computer Centre Society, patna. 4. District Information Officer cum Secretary, District Computer Centre Society, Patna. 5. District Education Officer, Patna. ----------- 3/ 06.02.2009 Heard. The petitioner is one of the unfortunate people, who undertook the work of computer education programme for imparting computer education to School children of Patna District. Under the agreement with the State, he has undertaken to impart computer education to all School-going children of Government Schools in Patna at a certain level. The contract provided the list of schools and also the obligations of the State to pay every quarter the bills of the petitioner. What this Court finds curious is while the State insists that the petitioner perform his part punctually it relieves itself of the obligation under the same contract with regard to making timely payments. It forgets that nobody renders service gratuitous. It is a commercial venture for the petitioner and if payments are not timely made it cannot deliver goods or services. Petitioner was under an agreement for a period of five years but right from the fist quarter onwards payments were not made by the State. One dispute or the other was raised for reasons that may not be discussed in these proceedings. Ultimately, in the counter affidavit, a lot of excuses have been given for disputing the bills, as submitted by the petitioner. They include dispute with regards to the number of students 2 taught, the number of institutions in which education was imparted, the period for which education was imparted included that no claim would lie for the period when schools were closed or classes were not held. With regard to the last, all I can say is that for imparting education like computer education infrastructure facilities, including employees have to be arranged for. The infrastructure facilities cannot be dismantled on days when school is closed for holidays or otherwise. The liability of the concern continues and then to say that for those days no payments will be made is inconceivable. Does the State refuse payments of its teachers when school is closed on account of holiday? The Answer is obvious ‘no’. Nothing in the agreement has been brought to my notice to justify such a stand. Be that as it may, in the counter affidavit it is admitted that some work was done and bills are to be paid. That is enough for this Court. If the respondents agree that some work was done, it was their duty to quantify the payment at least to that extent and pay to show their bona fide. They have done nothing but made excuses and tried to create disputes to withhold the entire payment. Then in the counter affidavit it is stated that from time to time paltry amounts have been paid including some during the pendency of this writ petition. This does not satisfy the Court. Accounts have to be finally settled once and for all and people cannot be made to run from pillar to post at the vagaries of administration. I may only note two interesting aspects in this case. Once payments were not forthcoming for a long period, petitioner 3 refused to carry on his obligation any further as State had abandoned its obligation to make payment under the same agreement. Treating this as a breach of contract by the petitioner, the contract has now been rescinded and intended to be re-tendered blaming petitioner and forgetting State’s own obligation in that regard. Then what is most curious is, as the petitioner was not being paid any money from the State, it was naturally unable to pay its employees. Employees were then instigated and the very District Magistrate, Patna, who was to ensure payment to the petitioner then goes and files an F.I.R. against the petitioner for non-payment of wages to its employees under sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. This case is wholly misconceived. This Court wonders the propriety of all these actions. All this started by the State defaulting in making timely payment. If timely payments were made to the petitioner, there would have been no cause for the petitioner to stop work. If timely payments were made to the petitioner, there would be no cause not to pay the employees but State chooses to create a circumstance and then as if the circumstance is created by some arrogant person to proceed to take action. In my view, there cannot be a more arbitrary action in this regard. I therefore have no option but to direct that within one month from today State would make whatever enquiry is necessary and furnish the same to the petitioner with regard to quantification of petitioner’s dues. Petitioner would have an opportunity to rebut the enquiry reports and then within three months from today, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna would ensure full and final settlement 4 of petitioner’s claim to the extent admitted by the State. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. S.B.P. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)