IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4435 of 2004 SACHIDANAND SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 9. 03.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for payment of the dues of the petitioner for the work which has already been done but the payment has not been made. The petitioner entered into the agreement No. 216F-2 of 1996-97 for the repair works of Veterinary Hospital and College, Gaya. He claims to have completed the work as per the requirements and specifications and the same was recorded in the measurement book and bill submitted by the petitioner was duly checked and verified by the authority concerned and the Divisional Officer, on being satisfied with the same, sent the bill for making payment but no payment was made. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State- respondents stand taken is that the claim of the petitioner was examined by the Departmental Liability Committee in its meeting held on 13.8.2006 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Engineer, South, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar and his claim was rejected on the ground that the bill was not checked by the Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer and the measurement book was not re-issued in accordance with law and the paper cutting of the tender notice was not made available to the Liability Committee. In - 2 - the supplementary counter affidavit filed after this Court had directed the State-respondents to state as to what action has been taken against the wrong-doers, it has been stated that show cause notices have been issued against the concerned officials and employees as to why departmental proceedings be not taken against them by letter dated 29.4.2008. So far as the payment to the petitioner is concerned the same not having been admitted by the respondents, this Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot issue any positive direction in favour of the petitioner. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievances. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)