Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 542 (CHH)

Vinay Tiwari v. Chief Municipal Officer

2016-12-14

A.K.PANDA, T.P.SHARMA

body2016
ORDER : T.P. SHARMA, J. 1. By this reference petition under Section 7-A of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (in short the Adhiniyam, 1983) petitioner has claimed the amount of construction not paid by the respondents and deducted by the respondents. Thereby petitioner has claimed total Rs. 16,07,911/-. Execution of an agreement, issuance of work order, construction of Samudaik Bhavan different payment made by the respondents through running bill, extra work on the direction of respondents are not substantially disputed. 2. As per petition, petitioner entered into an agreement with respondents for construction of Samudaik Bhavan at gram panchayat Saja. Cost of construction was Rs. 30,51,390/-. Petitioner started the construction certain direction for extra work was given by the respondent which has been carried out by the petitioner. Respondents have paid amounts through running bills but, on account of non availability of funds. Certain amounts were withheld finally on the ground of audit objection final bill was not prepared. Petitioner has claimed the amount of work executed and amount withheld/deducted by the respondents. 3. By filing written statement respondents have admitted the execution of agreement, issuance of work order, execution of work, execution of extra work on the direction of respondents. The deduction of amounts specially amount of Rs. 5,41,850/- on the ground of non availability of funds. Respondents have further pleaded that petitioner has committed serious irregularity in construction. Therefore, remaining amount has not been paid to the petitioner. 4. In the light of rival pleadings of the parties the question remain for consideration is whether respondents have failed to pay the amount of construction and has also illegally deducted/withheld the amount of the petitioner. 5. We have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6. Counsel for petitioner Mr. Moti Sagar submits that after entering into an agreement and issuance of work order, site for construction of Samudaik Bhavan was finalised. Therefore, extra work for construction became necessary which were directed by the respondents from time to time. Petitioner has completed the construction. Respondents have also paid the amount of Rs. 25,31,733/- by running bills but, respondents have failed to pay remaining bill even also withheld the amount of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Moti Sagar also submits that petitioner has also executed the work of Rs. 7 lacs which has not been measured till today by the respondents. Petitioner is entitled for Rs. 16,07,911/-. 25,31,733/- by running bills but, respondents have failed to pay remaining bill even also withheld the amount of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Moti Sagar also submits that petitioner has also executed the work of Rs. 7 lacs which has not been measured till today by the respondents. Petitioner is entitled for Rs. 16,07,911/-. 8. Counsel for respondents submits that all though petitioner has completed the work and also carried out the extra works but, audit has pointed out the serious irregularity in construction vide Ex.D-7 and as directed for recovery of amount. Therefore, amount of petitioner has not been paid. Petitioner is also not entitled for aforesaid claim. 9. As per pleadings and documents petitioner has completed the construction amount of Rs. 25,31,733/- has been paid by the respondents to the petitioner. Rest amount has not been paid on the ground of audit objection. As per audit objection Ex.D-7, the petitioner has executed the extra work for which bill has been prepared. 10. As per pleadings, petitioner has carried out the extra work at the instance of respondents. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for cost of such construction and only on the ground of audit objection; claim of the petitioner has not been satisfied by the respondents. 11. This is not the case in which petitioner has carried out the construction in violation of the terms of the agreement or without any sanction of respondents. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for the cost of construction in accordance with the terms of contract. Respondents themselves have admitted in para 17 of the written statement that on account of non availability of funds Rs. 5,41,850/- was not paid to the petitioner. Considering the documents and material petitioner is entitled for the claim. As per relief claimed except clause 4 of the relief relating to approximate claim of Rs. 7 lacs. Petitioner is further entitled for payments of extra work which has not been measured after its final measurement and negotiation with the respondents. Consequently, petition is partly allowed. The respondents shall pay the petitioner the amount of Rs. 9,07,911/-. Respondents are directed to consider the question of payments of last work as claimed by petitioner in relief clause 4 of its petition and decide the claim within 3 months from today. Petitioner is also directed to approach the authorities of the respondents within 15 days from today. 12. Party shall bear their own cost. 9,07,911/-. Respondents are directed to consider the question of payments of last work as claimed by petitioner in relief clause 4 of its petition and decide the claim within 3 months from today. Petitioner is also directed to approach the authorities of the respondents within 15 days from today. 12. Party shall bear their own cost. 13. Advocate fees if certified as per schedule. 14. Memo of cost be drawn accordingly.