IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.184 of 2006 Bhagwan Mishra S/O Late Chandradeo Mishra, resident of village Kaudhogar, P.S. Raxaul, District-East Champaran. ….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Division, East Champaran, Motihari. 3. The Assistant Engineer Rural Engineering Organisation Works Sub-Division, East Champaran, Motihari. ….Respondents. ----------- 05/ 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 15.09.2005 by which the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Work Division, Motihari rejected the claim of the petitioner and directed him for payment of the amount due and also challenging order dated 19.02.1997 issued by the same authority asking the petitioner to deposit the said amount in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Raxaul and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It transpires that earlier the petitioner had challenged order dated 19.02.2007 vide CWJC No.2575 of 2004, but the said writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 25.07.2005 after making the following observations. “Without going into the correctness or otherwise of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it appears against the impugned order dated 19.02.1997, representations of the petitioner dated 28.02.1997 and 5.9.2000 are pending. Let the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineer Division, East Champaran, Motihari (respondent no.2) dispose of the representations of the petitioner by passing a reasoned order - 2 - within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 4. In view of the said order, the petitioner filed an application dated 29.08.2005 before the Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer vide impugned order dated 15.09.2005 rejected his claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the impugned order neither any opportunity was granted to the petitioner for pre-decisional hearing nor the relevant materials were considered by the said authority as a result of which the petitioner was deprived of his right and property in a very casual and perverse manner which is also violative of the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 5. From a bare perusal of the order of this Court dated 25.07.2003 (Annexure-7) it is quite apparent that without going into the correctness or otherwise of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties it was found that against the impugned order dated 19.02.1997 representations dated 28.02.1997 and 05.09.2000 filed by the petitioner before the authority were pending and hence the Executive Engineer was directed to dispose of the said representations by passing a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order. 6. No direction was given in the said order to the Executive Engineer to hear the petitioner. Even in the petition dated 29.08.2005 (Annexure-8) filed by the petitioner before the Executive Engineer annexing the said order of this Court it was not prayed by the petitioner for affording him any opportunity of hearing. - 3 - 7. On the other hand, from the impugned order dated 15.09.2005 (Annexure-9) it is quite apparent that the aforesaid Executive Engineer had considered the claims of the petitioner in detail and has passed a reasoned and considered order. Hence, there appears to be no disregard of the order of a Bench of this Court or any provision of law. 8. So far the legality of the said order on merit is concerned, it is quite apparent that this is a contractual matter and the money claim of the petitioner as per the contract has been rejected. Hence the dues claimed by the petitioner are not admitted. In the said circumstances, there is no occasion for this court to interfere in such matter, specially when the petitioner has two options available to him, namely arbitration and money suit, for redressal of his grievances. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)