Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 520 (PAT)

Ganpati Decorator v. State of Bihar

2008-03-19

body2008
ORDER The petitioner was given a work order for supplying Chairs, Samiyanas, Generators, Fans, provide for fooding etc. for workers at the time of Panchayati Raj Elections in the year 2006, for the entire district of Jehanabad. The work having been completed as per the rate already specified in the work order, the petitioner submitted his bills totaling to about Rs. 63 lakhs. No payment having been made petitioner came to this Court. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that Rs. 2,53,000/- was given as advance and Rs. 69,799/- was thereafter given. For the balance of scrutinized payable dues repeated allotment of funds have been asked for from the Director Panchayati Raj with no response. It is a shame for the State Government. The letters of reminder are annexed as Annexures B, C, D and E of the counter affidavit from the Office of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jehanabad to the Director Panchayati Raj. In those letters references have been made to schedule of payments drawn up but those schedule details have not been provided to this Court. 3. The State should file detailed as referred to in the respective Annexures justifying the demand as made and so as to whom they were to be paid. The State has stated that out of the bills of about Rs. 63 lakhs only about 12.68 lakhs was found payable as the rests were fake bills. This Court does not understand the same. What was paid and why this termed to be fake has not been disclosed. State would file a further affidavit clearly stating and demonstrating that so that this Court is satisfied that it is not a mere pretence of excuse not to pay but there exists a genuine cause of not making payment. 4. In the meantime, the respondent Collector (respondent no. 3) is directed to make payment of the balance outstanding as admitted by him within 15 days from today alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date payment was due. The interest would ultimately be charged to the person who has caused the delay in payment. 5. In order to enable State to file a better counter affidavit, as directed, put up after three weeks at the top of the list. 6. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the State.