ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is seeking payment of admitted bills in view of the work under A.P.D.R.P Scheme, which agreements are enclosed at Annexures 2 to 5 to the writ application. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the work has been executed and they are also supported by the statements made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents on 28th January, 2013 at paragraphs 47 and 48. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs. 13.75 crores out of total sum of Rs. 40.94 crores, the total value of the four different works order executed by the petitioner under A.P.D.R.P Scheme. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also relied upon the letter dated 28th February, 2012 issued by the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board addressed to the Principal Secretary, Energy Department, whereunder, according to him, he has clearly observed that a High Level Committed constituted for verification of execution of 6 out of 18 A.P.D.R.P Projects, have certified proper execution of the project, as a result of that there is improvement of revenue as well as supply of electricity. Learned senior counsel further submits that even the notings in the file which have been obtained under R.T.I. and have been enclosed in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 5th November, 2012, clearly indicate that the value of the work allotted to the petitioner has been shown as Rs. 40.94 crores and that he has executed the work in question. 5. Learned senior counsel also refers to F.I.R. which has been registered against certain officials of the electricity board and others by the Vigilance Bureau where also at paragraph-K in relation to A.P.D.R.P File No. 49 for city of Ranchi, it has been shown that the three works for renovation of existing 11 K.V. line, renovation of existing Low Tension Line including LTAB cable and renovation and Augmentation of existing DSS (LT capacitor installation and earthing) have been found to be executed. Learned senior counsel submits that in the wake of such admitted facts, the respondents are now trying to wriggle out of their responsibility to pay the admitted dues of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner is facing acute hardship. Learned senior counsel submits that in the wake of such admitted facts, the respondents are now trying to wriggle out of their responsibility to pay the admitted dues of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner is facing acute hardship. He also submits that only ground taken on behalf of the respondents-Board now is that there was some delay in finalization of the work in question which in any case according to the petitioner is not attributable to him and should not be made reason or excuse to deny the admitted dues against satisfactory execution of work which has been found by them. Learned senior counsel even submits that ground taken by the respondents that other two works were not duly approved is not made out from any of the document on record. In such circumstances, the respondent should be directed to make payment of the balance outstanding dues against execution of the aforesaid four works order of the total value of Rs. 40.94 crores. 6. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, on the other hand, submits that though there has been a reference in certain documents relating to execution of the work from time to time but F.I.R. has also been lodged in respect of not only the work executed by the petitioner but also several other works under A.P.D.R.P Scheme in which the higher officials of the Board are accused and the matter is also being investigated by the Vigilance Bureau. It is submitted that irregularities have been found in the allotment of work and issuance of work orders. He also submits that 3rd and 4th work order issued in favour of the petitioner were issued at the level of engineer concerned without proper approval of the Board. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board submits that when the matter is being investigated, the respondents are at a loss to take any decision in respect of the matter of payment of the dues claimed by the petitioner which is subject matter of the Vigilance case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board submits that when the matter is being investigated, the respondents are at a loss to take any decision in respect of the matter of payment of the dues claimed by the petitioner which is subject matter of the Vigilance case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that there are certain documents including the letter of the Chairman of the Electricity Board dated 28th February, 2012 indicating that High Level Committee constituted for verification of execution of 6 out of 18 A.P.D.R.P Projects, have certified proper execution of the project, as a result of that there is improvement of revenue as well as supply of electricity. 8. In the first counter affidavit also it appears that the respondents have taken stand relating to the satisfactory execution of the work. However, there has been further development and F.I.R. has been lodged against certain higher officials of the Board in respect of subject matter of A.P.D.R.P Project executed by the petitioner as well as other agencies. 9. The petitioner, on the other hand, has claimed that at no point of time, the execution of the work are being denied. At best the denial is on the ground of certain irregularities committed by the officials of the Board themselves in issuing the work order. However, in a matter relating to execution of work and claim for payment of outstanding dues by the petitioner in writ jurisdiction, this Court finds it difficult to enter into the question of facts, so as to ascertain the liability of the Board in relation to execution of certain works claimed by the petitioner under the work orders in question. 10. In such circumstances, the writ petition is being disposed of without commenting anything on the merits of the case with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Chairman of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board with a fresh representation containing all necessary facts and documents in support of his claim for payment of outstanding dues against the execution of work under the work orders issued under A.P.D.R.P Scheme within a period of three weeks. On receipt of such representation, the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board shall consider the same in accordance with law and, on due verification of records, pass a reasoned and speaking order in respect of claim of the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks thereafter, which shall also be communicated to the petitioner. If the claims of the petitioner are found to be genuine and legally admissible and there is no legal impediment in the same, payments in lieu thereof shall also be made within a period of 8 weeks thereafter. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions. Petition disposed of.