IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15609 of 2008 M/S RABINDRA PRASAD . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 05.05.2010 The District Committee of East Champaran, headed by the erstwhile District Magistrate as a Chairman decided to effect certain purchases for being supplied to various schools of the blocks falling within the East Champaran District. The commodities to be supplied include Slate, Pencil, chalk, Board, Nataraj rubber and copies. The decision for purchase is Annexure-1 to the writ application, dated 06.01.2005. 2. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman passed an order for supply of rubber in the name of present petitioner, namely, M/S Rabindra Prasad. Supply order is Annexure-2, dated 25.01`.2005. Stand of the petitioner in the writ application supported by evidence is that supplies were effected to the various B.D.O.s as shall be evident from Annexure-3 series. The supplies of goods were made from 31.01.2005 to 4.2.2005. Time frame of 15 days was granted and it is not disputed that supplies were made within the fixed period. 3. The reason for the petitioner to approach the Court is the failure on the part of the respondents to make payment to him for the supplies. The respondents were obliged to make payment for supply to him but since - 2 - the petitioner did not beget any relief from them, he is before the High Court. 4. In response to the prayer made by the petitioner for payment , a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying any obligation to make payments because it is stated that the rubber supplied did not meet the specification of the sample which was approved. This is reflected in the meeting and the minutes thereof dated 24.11.2006, which is Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. 5. From bare reading of the said Annexure-1 it seems that the Committee sat over the question for payment with regard to supplies and the committee did not consider it fit for payment. In view of the same no payments could be made because the supplies were not inconformity with the supply order. 6. In response to the statement or stand of the State, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that many a persons/ suppliers who were denied payment had occasion to approach the High Court and the High Court after considering all the aspects finally held that there was obligation upon the respondents- State to make payment and the reasons being held out are not tenable enough for denial of the payments to those petitioners. Some of those decision in this regard are in - 3 - C.W.J.C. No. 15331 of 2008, Sudhir Prakash Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., vide order dated 06.02.2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 11993 of 2008, M/S Mas Vindyavasini Enterprises Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors, vide order dated 12.08.2009. 7. Learned counsel also informs this Court that some of the decisions of the learned Single Judge was also affirmed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 258 of 2009 and L.P.A. No. 268 of 2009, The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Sudhir Prakash, vide order dated 26.03.2009. It is also his stand that it is the same enquiry report, contained in Annexure-3, which an issue in those writ applications as well. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has yet another contention. His submission is that the hardness or softness of the rubber were not decided by any competent authority and that too was decided after more than two years of supply. Merely because the committee found a few sample in question hard that it does not make the entire lot fit for rejection. How many samples were checked and what was the sample survey has not been considered by the committee which went into the matter. 9. From the submissions made in this regard and the stand of the State the question which arises is whether the petitioner deserves payments for supplies made by him as it is a case for outright rejection. This - 4 - Court fails to understand in the background to the dispute and other orders passed by the Court as to how the State can refuse payments. The supplies have been made and accepted. It is too late in the day to allow the State to refuse payment. The writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to make payment of outstanding dues of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J ) BTiwary/