Judgment 1. The plight of Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), who are invited to perform governmental functions, on failure or inability of Government itself to do so, would be illustrated by this case. The apathy shown by the State, once the work is done, to make payment not only deters the NGO from entering the State and doing things which ordinarily the State ought to do affects every citizen, who is then deprived of State service or State sponsored services. 2. The petitioner (Bihar Blind People Care Society) is a non-governmental organization. It has specialised surgeons working for it and undertakes Government sponsored cataract operation camps. The cataract operations are performed at minimal cost affordable by all patients and they provide spectacles and other things as after care measures. The services of the specialised surgeons would otherwise be phenomenally expensive but keeping in view the charitable object, the specialised surgeon carrying their own equipments and set up at places designated by the State. Ordinarily, this sort of work is the State obligation being a Welfare State but as it appears that the State lacks the doctor or the infrastructure facility for the same, it is unable to discharge its obligation and duty. Seeing the poor performance of the State in this regard the Central Government formulated a National Programme for Control of Blindness and its guidelines have been appended to one of the many counter affidavits. I may refer to certain provisions thereof later. 3. The petitioner undertook on such assignment in the year, 20001. This was in relation to district, Bhojpur. I may mention here that the petitioner had done similar camps in other areas as well in respect of which also there was some disputes but almost all those disputes of other districts have been resclved and settled by the district authority on getting notice of the present proceedings except district Bhojpur and the present Civil Surgeon, Bhojpur seeks to oppose everything. Short of saying that the petitioner did nothing and are not entitled to any payment, he has said everything to justify withholding due payments. 4. NGO (Petitioner) who had taken to discharge State obligation seven years back is still running for the due remuneration he was entitled to and the present Civil Surgeon "sticking to the rules" and giving excuses for payment not being made. 4. NGO (Petitioner) who had taken to discharge State obligation seven years back is still running for the due remuneration he was entitled to and the present Civil Surgeon "sticking to the rules" and giving excuses for payment not being made. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no denial that operations were duly performed by the petitioner (NGO) and payment is due for last seven years. This is the plight of NGO who venture to this State and this is the reason why work suffers in this State leading to suffering of masses. 5. In the last counter affidavit filed in respect of district of Bhojpur sworn by the present Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah, three objections have been raised in support of denying the total payment to the petitioner. I may specifically mention here that there is no denial that certain number of persons were operated, thus there is no denial that for the last seven years, for ascertained number of persons operated, payments were due to the petitioner. The three grounds may be summaried thus: (i) The petitioner had operated upon certain persons, who were permanent residents of another district and as per clause (vi)(b) of the guidelines above mentioned district Blind Control Society of the district, Bhojpur was not liable to pay but the petitioner had to approach the district Blind Control Society of those respective districts for payment. (ii) In view of Govt. of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health) office memorandum dated 22nd February, 2000 (Annexure B to the counter affidavit) it was incumbent upon the Civil Surgeon, Bhojpur to demand and keep on record various documents and vouchers in original for purchase made in respect of operations done and in absence of it being submitted by petitioner he was unable to make payment to the petitioner (NGO). (iii) As per grounds made out in the letter of Civil Surgeon dated 8.10.2007 addressed to the petitioner, the petitioner had not supplied the original vouchers alongwith the petitioners letter dated 1.10.2007 and in absence of original vouchers as required by the office memorandum dated 22nd February, 2002 (supra) he could not proceed to make any payment whatsoever. 6. It is only for the aforesaid three reasons payments are being denied as a whole. 6. It is only for the aforesaid three reasons payments are being denied as a whole. Petitioner right from the very beginning has been asserting that papers were repeatedly submitted, papers were available in the office of Civil Surgeon and as such again he sent the same under his letter dated 1.10.2007 appended in the counter affidavit of the Civil Surgeon himself as Annexure A but this letter being on record the documents and vouchers appended thereto vanished, allegedly, not sent at all by the petitioner. 7. Coming to the first ground taken with regard to treating outside patients is concerned, reliance is placed on clause (vi)(b) of the guidelines of the Central Government. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent-Civil Surgeon, Bhojpur he could not pay in respect of those. Two issues arise. Firstly, is the stand correct and secondly if the Civil Surgeon did not have any record before him as alleged by him, for denying any payment to petitioner, then how was this objection at all raised. This objection could only be raised on basis of Bed Head Tickets and Performa filed by the petitioner otherwise the Civil Surgeon was not privy to this information. On the face of it this stand falsifies the stand of the Civil Surgson that he has got no paper in respect of the operations done and they have yet to be submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, this is apparently pretence of a dispute being created by the Civil Surgeon to deny the legitimate payments to the petitioner. 8. Now coming to the merit of this contention, guidelines (vi)(b) is quoted hereunder: "The DBSC will need to have an agreement with the concerned for providing the package of services in the designated area as allotted by the DBCS. Reimbursement of the NGOs for surgeries performed should therefore be only for those cases, which are from the designated village/blocks. Example-if an NGO is conducting surgeries of patients coming from outside the district/State it will be required from the NGO to get the reimbursement for these cases from that particular district/State. The DBSC of the district where the NGO is located would therefore not be eligible to pay. In case of patients coming outside the designated area payment may be made by the DBSC after due enquiry and satisfying itself of the genuineness of the claim and performance of service." 9. The DBSC of the district where the NGO is located would therefore not be eligible to pay. In case of patients coming outside the designated area payment may be made by the DBSC after due enquiry and satisfying itself of the genuineness of the claim and performance of service." 9. A reference to that provision would show that ordinarily the residents outside the district would not be paid by the district where the camp is held but that clause itself permit such payment. The last line of the paragraph, quoted above, in bold would show that in those cases the District Blind Control Society (a part of the Health Department of the State) is required to enquire and satisfy itself as to the genuineness of the case before making payment. There is no absolute embargo on payment as sought to be canvassed by the Civil Surgeon otherwise the last line of the paragraph became redundant. Therefore, again the stand of the present Civil Surgeon is malicious and only a pretence to deny the legitimate payment. Even otherwise few people, who have come from other district and have been operated, at best their payments could be withheld if the stand was bona fide but for that to withhold the entire payment is inexcusable. Apparently, it is vitiated on ground of malice and mala fide in law and is not a valid defence against payment demanded. It is rejected accordingly. 10. The second objection taken is with regard to Govt. of Indias office memorandum dated 22.2.2000, as mentioned in the Civil Surgeons letter dated 8.10.2007 (Annexure-B/1 to the last counter affidavit by Civil Surgeon, Bhojpur). This document of Govt. of India has been appended as Annexure B to the said counter affidavit. 11. With reference to various clauses contained in page 2 of the office memorandum it is said that the Govt. of India has made it obligatory upon the District Blind Control Society to maintain the following documents before sanctioning expenditure incurred on such activity. Various documents have been mentioned therein. 11. With reference to various clauses contained in page 2 of the office memorandum it is said that the Govt. of India has made it obligatory upon the District Blind Control Society to maintain the following documents before sanctioning expenditure incurred on such activity. Various documents have been mentioned therein. Relevant part thereof is quoted hereunder: "The Government Fixed Facility receiving Grant in aid from DBSCs would need to maintain the following documents for check by DBCS for expenditures incurred on the activity as follows: (1) Cataract Surgery Record of each patient operated/to be maintained in the facility and made available for reference on demand aiongwith receipt for spectacles provided after refraction. (2) Certificate that the patients were provided free services during pre-operative, operative and post-operative period. (3) Certificate from the Head of the Hospital that funds received from DBCS have been utilized for Cataract Surgery only and vouchers in original be submitted to DBCS. (4) The drugs and spectacles may be procured by the Institute/NGOs/ DBCSs as per specifications enclosed and in accordance with present procedures detailed in the guidelines or in accordance with States rules and regulations." 12. In my view, this stand is also equally misconceived and is fit to be rejected as a mere pretence of an excuse to deny the legitimate payments. 13. A reference would show that those are the guidelines for "Government Fixed Facility" who are performing such operation and as such became entitled to grant in aid from the District Blind Control Society from which the Central Governments finance is ordinarily channalised. This office memorandum has been drawn up to show and point out to the authority that it is because of lack of infrastructure facility in the Government Fixed Facility that NGOs are given the work but this is not to be encouraged. It is only issued with reference to "Govt. Fixed Facility" and controls the manner in which Govt. Fixed Facility is to operate. What is "Govt. Fixed Facility" is also indicated in the very beginning of the memorandum where it has clearly been stated that "Govt. Fixed Facility" are District Hospital and Medical College. Camps organized by NGOs are not either in District Hospital or in Medical College Hospital for they have their own team of doctors and therefore their own facilities. What is "Govt. Fixed Facility" is also indicated in the very beginning of the memorandum where it has clearly been stated that "Govt. Fixed Facility" are District Hospital and Medical College. Camps organized by NGOs are not either in District Hospital or in Medical College Hospital for they have their own team of doctors and therefore their own facilities. The said office memo has thus no application to petitioner and has been taken out of context and wrongly and mala fide applied to the petitioner only to deny the legitimate payment. 14. A reference to the memorandum would also show that those documents and papers are necessary to be maintained in Government Fixed Facility because in Govt. Fixed Facility some of the facilities or services may be provided or may not be provided and the cost reimburse depends on those facts. This is absolutely different so far as NGOs are concerned. They are to be paid fixed amount per operation, which does not vary in anyway. They have fixed obligation and after seven years it could not be a case wherein it could be said that the petitioner seven years back did not provide spectacles or any other thing. That being so, even this excuse is a pretence of excuse and cannot be accepted by this Court and therefore must be rejected outright. 15. The next question is with regard to the last ground that non-supply of paper and vouchers. With reference to the petitioners letter dated 1.10.07 and reply to it by the Civil Surgeon by his letter dated 8.10.07, the two letters are Annexures A and B/1 to the counter affidavit filed by the Civil Surgeon. 16. Annexure A is the letter of the petitioner saying that to avoid all disputes and future complication as to whether papers were submitted or not earlier they are being submitted alongwith the letter again. This is clearly so stated in letter dated 1.10.07 of the petitioner. This letter has been addressed to Additional Chief Medical Officer-cum-District Program Manager (Blindness Control), Bhojpur, (hereinafter referred to as "ACMO"), as apparently, he was the Co-ordinating authority. This letter as appended by the respondent-Civil Surgeon himself would show that it was forwarded by ACMO to the Civil Surgeon with an endorsement on that letter. This letter has been addressed to Additional Chief Medical Officer-cum-District Program Manager (Blindness Control), Bhojpur, (hereinafter referred to as "ACMO"), as apparently, he was the Co-ordinating authority. This letter as appended by the respondent-Civil Surgeon himself would show that it was forwarded by ACMO to the Civil Surgeon with an endorsement on that letter. The ACMO does not say the paper alongwith the letter were not being forwarded or they had not been received in his office. Annexure A/1 to the counter affidavit, is a letter of the same officer to the Civil Surgeon in response to the query by the Civil Surgeon. This letter dated 23.10.07 also clearly mentions that the letter Annexure A of the petitioner was received in his office and was forwarded by him to the Civil Surgeon. Again this letter makes no mention that the letter did not have the required papers as mentioned in that letter. Till this stage there is no mention of the papers not being annexed with the letter. Then we come to the letter or Civil Surgeon dated 8.10.07 to the petitioner (written prior to the letter appended as Annexure A/1 of the Additional Chief Medical Officer), here the Civil Surgeon mentions that the letter has been received by him without any voucher or document as mentioned in the letter and instead of questioning the Additional Chief Medical Officer with regard to missing documents he accuses the petitioner and ask him to re-submit the papers even though the endorsement on the letter by the Additional Chief Medical Officer would show that all original documents were in the office of Civil Surgeon himself. What can a reasonable man infer from this state of affairs? It is obvious that the documents were sent because the letter of the petitioner was a suo motu letter as he wanted the payment to be made to him and that letter was sent during the pendency of this petition itself. There is no mention that documents were not received when the letter is presented in the office of the Additional Chief Medical Officer. At no point of time earlier than the receipt of the letter by the Civil Surgeon is there any mention that documents and vouchers were not found appended to the letter of petitioner much less by the ACMO who first received it. The petitioner is now being accused of not filing the documents. At no point of time earlier than the receipt of the letter by the Civil Surgeon is there any mention that documents and vouchers were not found appended to the letter of petitioner much less by the ACMO who first received it. The petitioner is now being accused of not filing the documents. This to my mind, is creating circumstances to deny the legitimate payments which are due. However, as I have held that submitting those vouchers is not an obligation the demand thereof itself is bad and unwarranted. Thus this Court finds that none of the grounds taken by the Civil Surgeon, Bhojpur for withholding legitimate payments of the petitioner are genuine or valid much less justifiable. They are mere pretence of an excuse unwarranted in fact or in law and, thus arbitrary and capricious. The actions of the Civil Surgeon are thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and thus amenable to correction in writ jurisdiction as held by the Apex Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. since reported in (2004)3 SCC 553 . 17. The Civil Surgeon has the figure of number of operations done. There is no dispute about it. He will immediately order for payment on basis of number of patients operated at the rate fixed without any further delay. If payment is not made within one month from today then the same shall be payable alongwith the interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date it was due when the operation was performed and after paying the said amount the State would enquire into the matter and recover the interest from the officer concerned for inordinate delay in payment. 18. With the above observations and direction, this writ petition is allowed.