Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 140 (PAT)

Parshu Ram Singh v. State

2001-02-14

S.K.CHATTOPADHYAYA

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this application a prayer has been made to issue direction to respondents not to circumvent order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9035/97 passed on 18.11.1997. Further the very constitution of the Liability Committee has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the so-called Liability Committee, constituted to consider the claim of the petitioner, pursuant to order of the High Court, was in total contravention of the Govt. Circular dated 18.12.1996, 3. The fact which has not been disputed is that for payment of Rs. 5,01,755/- as against the work done by him, the petitioner moved this Court in the aforesaid writ application and by order dated 18.11.1997 this Court directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Secretary, Building Construction and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and the Secretary was to enquire into the matter from the concerned engineer. Admitted dues, if any, was directed to be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of six months. It was further observed that if respondents dispute any claim or part thereof, they will have to give reason for the same and will communicate the same to the petitioner, in such circumstances, the petitioner was given liberty to move before the appropriate forum/Civil Court for such disputed amount, if any. However, it appears that instead of moving before the Secretary, Building Construction and Housing Department (respondent no.2) the petitioner filed his claim before the Liability Committee by filing a petition. The Committee by its order dated 20.10.1998, while admitting the claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 2,36,812/-, disputed the claim for Rs. 31,400/-. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the total dues of Rs, 5,01,755/- only due amount has been admitted to be extent of Rs. 2,36,812/- and odd and the Committee has rejected the rest of the claim indicating that claim to the extent of Rs. 31,400/- has been disputed. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has drawn my attention of the Court to the very constitution of the Liability Committee which has passed the impugned order. 2,36,812/- and odd and the Committee has rejected the rest of the claim indicating that claim to the extent of Rs. 31,400/- has been disputed. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has drawn my attention of the Court to the very constitution of the Liability Committee which has passed the impugned order. According to him, in view of the Government Circular dated 18.12.1996 as contained in annexure-4 the Liability Committee will be constituted by three members, one of which will be the Chief Engineer, South Bihar Region being the Chairman, the Superintending Engineer of the concerned department would be the second member and the Executive Engineer of the concerned department will be the convenor- member. It is further clarified that in absence of the Chief Engineer, the Superintending Engineer of the other department in his place can be nominated by the Chief Engineer. 5. On the other hand, the Liability Committee which has decided the claim of the petitioner consists of only two members, i.e. Shri Brind Bihari Verma and Shri Mod Narayan Jha. This B.B.Verma has acted both as the Chairman as well as the member, though Mr. Verma is only the Superintending Engineer and not the Chief Engineer. Thus, according to learned counsel, the very constitution of the Liability Committee is bad being in violation of the circular of the State Government. 6. To this a reply has been given in the supplementary-counter-affidavit stating that the said Committee is not against the rule framed by the State Government. Admitting that as per circular of the Government the Chief Engineer will be the Chairman of the Committee, it is stated that as in 1998 no Chief Engineer was either posted in South Bihar Wing or in the North Bihar Wing in Building Construction Department, the Superintending Engineer, namely, Shri Brind Bihari Verrna was made the Chairman of the Liability Committee by memo no. 3198 (b) dated 13.08.1998. The said momo is annexure-B to the supplementary counter-affidavit. It is further stated that recommendation of the Committee has also been examined at the level of the Chief Engineer and the Secretary of the Building Construction Department. 7. 3198 (b) dated 13.08.1998. The said momo is annexure-B to the supplementary counter-affidavit. It is further stated that recommendation of the Committee has also been examined at the level of the Chief Engineer and the Secretary of the Building Construction Department. 7. It appears that during relevant period i.e.1998 the post of the Chief Engineer was vacant both in South Bihar Wing and North Bihar Wing, for which Notification dated 07,08.1998 was partialiy modified by Notification dated 13th August, 1998 declaring Shri Verma, the Superintending Engineer, Gaya and Shri Pandey Daya Shankar Prasad as the Chairman of the Lability Committee. They were to decide the representation regarding different claims within fifteen days. Surprisingly the State has not come forward with its earlier notification dated 07.08.1998 which has been modified on 13th August, 1998. This Notification also does not show that as because Mr. Verma has been appointed as the Chairman of the Committee he will also hold the post in the capacity of the Superintending Engineer and can be a member of the Committee. The earlier notification of the State Government as contained in annexure- 4 clearly speaks that the Liability Committee will consist of three persons, the Chairman, a member and a convenor member. Thus in my view, when Mr. Verma was made the chairman he could not have acted as a member as a Superintending Engineer. In his place he could have easily selected any other Superintending Engineer to act as a member. This having not done, the Committee itself is not properly constituted and therefore, its decision cannot bind the petitioner. 8. In the facts and circumstances, without going into the merit of the claim of the petitioner which is outside the purview of the writ jurisdiction, I set aside the order of the Liability Committee dated 20.10.1998 and remit the matter to respt. no, 2 the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna either to decide the claim of the petitioner himself or to place the matter before a duly constituted Liability Committee. 9. It is to be remembered that the claim of the petitioner is of 1997 and till date for some reason or other he has been deprived of his amount. Even the High Court order was not complied with. 10. Thus I direct respondent no. 9. It is to be remembered that the claim of the petitioner is of 1997 and till date for some reason or other he has been deprived of his amount. Even the High Court order was not complied with. 10. Thus I direct respondent no. 2 either to dispose of the matter or to get the matter disposed of by the Liability Committee within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The order passed in the earlier writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 9035 of 1997 on 18.11.1997 also must be kept in mind while disposing of the claim of the petitioner. 11. With this observation and direction this application thus stands disposed of.