Judgment 1. The petitioner had made some emergent supplies at the time of flood relief work on the orders of the Bihar State Small Scale Industries Corporation Ltd. (Respondent No.4). The said Corporation which is State Government undertaking and has been formed, inter alia, with the object procuring orders from State Government, State Government Departments and forwarding it to Small Scale Industries for execution and in the process collecting a part of the commission. 2. At the time of floods in the year 2004, relief work was carried out through Patna at war footings, as claimed by the State Government. This relief work was publicized by the State Government and true international fame, but, soon thereafter, it appears that the bubble burst. State Government in the department of disaster management then learnt that there was mass bungling, as usual. Vigilance Department of the State then took up the enquiry and criminal cases were lodged not only against the then District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna, but, the petitioner reports of actual supply came from Disaster Management Department of the Government, as also from the Vigilance, who examined the matter. Claims were raised by the Bihar State Small Scale Industries Corporation Ltd. with regard to supplies made through its agencies. It appears that once the criminal case was lodged every person withdrew his responsibility to make any payment whatsoever for any relief carried on. 3. State is not in a position to dispute that the substantial emergent relief work was done running into several crore rupees worth. Payments were also made in advance but once the criminal case been instituted no one is ready to finalize and settle the accounts. To this Court, the position can be exemplified as under. 4. Petitioners claim having been supplied 100 bags of relief material, the Corporation bills for 90, the disaster management acknowledges receiving 80, the Vigilance which seizes all papers opines that only 50 were supplied and the Government of India, which was monitoring the relief work day to day reports receiving 70 bags. 5. In view of these varying figures of supplies, receipts etc. a criminal case is instituted against the petitioner for making false claims. In view of the criminal case, now, it can be said that there were no supplies, whatsoever or for the minimum 50 bags with which there is no dispute. 5. In view of these varying figures of supplies, receipts etc. a criminal case is instituted against the petitioner for making false claims. In view of the criminal case, now, it can be said that there were no supplies, whatsoever or for the minimum 50 bags with which there is no dispute. Payment will not be made because a criminal case is instituted. In my view, the answer obviously would be in the negative. Lodging of criminal case and imputing criminal liability is entirely different from civil liability. Merely, because a criminal case has been instituted will not absolve respondents i.e. State Government in whatever department may be vigilance, disaster management or flood relief or through its undertaking. The Corporation or none of them would be absolved non-discharging their civil liability, someone has to take responsibility on the side of the Government to finally quantify the accounts and come to a figure because it is not disputed that some work was, in fact, done. It is well settled law no work is gratuitous. The State does not take stand that nothing was done. In fact, none of the respondents take stand that nothing was, in fact, done as indicated above. The quantities vary from authority to authority, but there has to be a common bottom line. Some authority has to determine that and that too it has to be done promptly before jt becomes too late and with every flood the papers tend to get washed away. This is the duty of the democratically elected Government, which is supposed to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner. 6. l, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary to immediately constitute a team with Officials from the concerned departments, which would also include the Vigilance Department; they would scrutinize all papers and come to a concrete finding with regard to the work done and the payment made and or due. This would be settling civil liability, which had to be tried and established on its own proceedings. Such an exercise must be completed within a period of six months from today. This order is being passed on the premise that governmental action may it be in respect of contract or in furtherance or a constitutional obligation has to be in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution. Such an exercise must be completed within a period of six months from today. This order is being passed on the premise that governmental action may it be in respect of contract or in furtherance or a constitutional obligation has to be in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution. Non-finalizing of a dispute, which is a matter of accountancy for a long period, per se, is arbitrary. It goes without saying that the committee so empowered and constituted would necessarily have to disclose figures and hear the Respondent-Corporation and petitioner and their like, as well, as the petitioner claims to be a beneficiary, in the matter. It would be obliged to be heard and gave a copy of the report ultimately made. The parties would have their remedies as advised to them, as the report so finally gone up. But, this Court emphasizes once again that finalizing the matter is of utmost importance for fair conduct of governmental business. This, in my view disposes of the writpetition. 7. Let a copy of this order be given to learned State Counsel.