JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to make allocation of fund for payment of his long pending bills. It appears that during the pendency of this writ petition before this Court, the matter was referred by the State to the Liability Committee. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in which the decision of the Liability Committee has been communicated by the Engineer-in-Chief under letter dated 18.1.08 and is contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Court is amazed and amused to see the reasonings given to deny the payment to the petitioner. Firstly the work done by the petitioner is not denied. It is only the liability to pay that is denied. In a democratic society governed by the Constitution I wonder how such a plea can be taken by the State. If work has been done then payment has to be made. On technical plea State cannot take advantage of its dominating position to get the work done without payment. That would be utter exploitation by the State and not permissible under the Constitution. Now coming to the grounds indicated for denying liability to pay. There are four grounds, as noted hereunder: (i) Notice inviting Tender was not widely advertised. (ii) Without available finance, tenders were floated. (iii) Executive Engineer has not verified the measurement book. Verifications have not been done as per rule. (iv) Measurement book has not been issued as per rule. 3. All these four grounds bear a common thread running across which has nothing to do with the petitioners. They are all, if any, default and dereliction on part of State officials. The effect of the order of the Engineer-in-Chief is "because my State officials failed to do their duty in proper manner, you must suffer". If advertisement was not properly made that cannot deny the payment for the work done. If any action ought to have taken, the same should have been taken against the Engineer concerned, who was responsible for the tender in question but surely work having been done, petitioner has to be paid. Secondly, if without allocation of fund work was got done how is the petitioner concerned with that. Petitioner was asked to do some work. Agreements were executed. Work was done. Now petitioner cannot be denied payment. All the works are public works. Secondly, if without allocation of fund work was got done how is the petitioner concerned with that. Petitioner was asked to do some work. Agreements were executed. Work was done. Now petitioner cannot be denied payment. All the works are public works. They were not the private or personal work of any particular officer. State cannot take benefit of work being done and then deny payment. They are liable to compensate the petitioner for the work done and the measurement of compensation would be the amount as per the agreement. This second ground is also misconceived. 4. The third is equally misconceived. Instead taking action against the Executive Engineer for not doing his work, petitioner is being punished by denial of his payment. That would put premium on inefficiency of an officer. If the officer fails to verify the measurement book, he is at fault not the petitioner. Similarly the last ground is also misconceived. To deny the payment, if measurement book was not issued as per rule, what is the petitioner got to do with it. He is not the requisitioning authority. He merely received what is given to him. Measurement book being there and duly verified by the Junior Engineer, it cannot be said that there was anything wrong with it and if any thing was wrong, the concerned officer should have been proceeded with but not the contractor. 5. I, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the order and holding that these being the only grounds for denying payment, they are no grounds for denying the payment. They are neither legal nor valid. They are merely pretence of an excuse to deny legitimate payment. The denial is most arbitrary. Thus, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order and direct payment as indicated in the order. The payment should be made to the petitioner within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the respondent no. 2-Chief Engineer, Bihar Public Works Department, Patna. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of.