Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1359 (PAT)

Kailash Ram & Sons. v. State Of Bihar

2009-11-03

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Facts are not disputed that the petitioner was directed to supply certain furniture manufactured by Godrej Company for beautification of the Collectors office at Jamui. As per the order dated 6.1.2008 placed by the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Jamui, vide Annexure-2, the supply was effected by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 5,13,878/-. The order was placed on the petitioner since he is a dealer of Godrej Company, on the direction of the District Magistrate, Jamui. All the formality for supply of the furniture was completed and the same was effected in the month of February, 2008. But when the bills were raised by the petitioner for payment neither the Executive Engineer nor the District Magistrate is owning up responsibility. After making many rounds of offices of the two, the petitioner has decided to approach the High Court seeking a direction for payment. 3. Two sets of counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents, one on behalf of the District Magistrate and other by the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Jamui. The stand of the District Magistrate is that it is the responsibility of the Executive Engineer to provide all furniture and furnishing along with the construction of the building whereas the Executive Engineer says that it is none of his concern as to how the furnishing is done. His responsibility is only to get the building constructed. There are certain communications which have been brought on record alongwith the counter affidavit from which it is evident that effort has been made to get funds sanctioned but without any finality. The Court does not understand as to why order was placed on the petitioner without provision of funds or due sanction at appropriate level. Petitioner is being deprived of his money for no fault of his. 4. If the conduct of the above kind was by any private citizen the Court may not have had an occasion to take cognizance or notice of it but coming from the limb of the State and at the level of the District Magistrate of the district, the least which the Court can record is that the act or conduct is deplorable if not reprehensible. 5. 5. Be that as it may the Court is constrained to refer the matter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar who shall not only take cognizance of the conduct of the authorities of the district, who are unnecessarily harassing a citizen of the State by denying lawful payment against supply of furniture, not in dispute. The beautification of the Collector office is not to be done at the cost of the citizen and from his resources. 6. This writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar that he shall ensure that payment is made to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of communication or production of the copy of this order. He shall also fix responsibility regarding conduct of the authority may be the District Magistrate or the Executive Engineer on administrative side, as the case may be for generating an unnecessary litigation and getting a bad name for the State. 7. This writ application is disposed of for strict compliance.