JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to forthwith release the outstanding dues of the petitioner for construction work of Samudayik Toilets in Ward No. 12 (old) / 14 (new) as well as in Ward No. 13 (old) / 15 (new), both under Municipal Corporation, Adityapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said work’) as the petitioner has already completed the said work within the stipulated time as per the terms and conditions of the agreements both dated 18.06.2018 and the constructed sites have also been handed over to the respondents. Further prayer has been made for quashing part of the minutes of the 7th Board Meeting dated 27.08.2019 of the Adityapur Municipal Corporation presided over by the Mayor, Adityapur Municipal Corporation whereby a unilateral decision has been taken that payment of the bills of the contractors will be made only after recommendations of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and the concerned Ward Councillor of Adityapur Municipal Corporation. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner, who is a proprietorship firm, was allotted the said work having agreement value of Rs.23,96,892/- for each work. The agreements for the said work were executed separately between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 on 18.06.2018 and the work orders as contained in letter Nos. 2029 & 2030 both dated 26.06.2018 were also issued under the signature of the respondent No.4. The petitioner completed the said work within the stipulated period in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and thereafter submitted the final bills after verification made by Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and Special Officer of the Adityapur Municipal Corporation. The respondent authorities, after being satisfied with the construction made by the petitioner, took over the site and also put it for public use. However, they did not pay the bills of the petitioner, rather in the 6th Board Meeting dated 23.01.2019 presided over by the Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Adityapur, decided to debar the petitioner from participating in future bids of the respondent-Corporation and proposal was sent to the Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Jharkhand for blacklisting it. Accordingly, an order as contained in memo No. 208 dated 25.01.2019 was issued by the respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner was debarred from participating in future bids. Accordingly, an order as contained in memo No. 208 dated 25.01.2019 was issued by the respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner was debarred from participating in future bids. The petitioner challenged the said decision of the respondent No.4 by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1415 of 2019 before this Court wherein vide order dated 16.04.2019, part of the order by which the petitioner was held to be not eligible for participating in future bids, was quashed and the matter was remanded to the competent authority of the respondent-Corporation to issue show cause notice to the petitioner specifying the allegation/irregularity leveled against it. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 issued show cause notice to the petitioner vide letter No. 1605 dated 30.05.2019 which was replied by the petitioner demanding a copy of the complaint filed against it by Sri Nathuni Singh, Ward Councillor of Ward No. 15, Adityapur Municipal Corporation also stating that the petitioner is a registered contractor under the Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand against whom any action can only be taken under Jharkhand Nagarpalika Samvedak Nibandhan Niyamavali, 2016 and the Board of Adityapur Municipal Corporation has no jurisdiction to debar a contractor from participating in the tender, until the contractor is blacklisted by the Urban Development Department. Thereafter, the petitioner filed various representations before the respondent authorities along with copies of measurement book and bills duly verified by Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and Special Officer of the Adityapur Municipal Corporation, however, the respondents, with an ulterior motive, did not make the remaining payment to the petitioner due to which it is suffering huge financial loss. The Board of the Adityapur Municipal Corporation, without making payment of the petitioner’s bills, convened the 7th Board Meeting on 27.08.2019 presided over by the Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Adityapur whereby it was decided that no payment would be made to contractors, until a recommendation is made by concerned Ward Councillor as well as by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made various representations before the respondent authorities for release of remaining payment for execution of the said work, however, due to personal grudge, they are not paying the same, as a result of which it is facing financial crisis and the proprietor of the petitioner is also suffering mental agony. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made various representations before the respondent authorities for release of remaining payment for execution of the said work, however, due to personal grudge, they are not paying the same, as a result of which it is facing financial crisis and the proprietor of the petitioner is also suffering mental agony. Non-payment of the outstanding dues to the petitioner even after completion of the allotted work with due diligence within the stipulated time is nothing but to make the petitioner suffer financially by the respondent authorities taking advantage of their dominant position. The act of putting new condition contrary to Clause 7 & 8 of the conditions of contract by the respondent authorities cannot be justified as after completion of the said work to the satisfaction of the Engineer-in-Charge, they have already taken over the sites and have put those for public use. Since the respondent authorities could not debar the petitioner from participating in further bids pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner, they are again victimizing it by not making payment of its remaining bills also by taking arbitrary and unilateral decision in the 7th Board Meeting of the Adityapur Municipal Corporation held on 27.08.2019. The said decision regarding payment to the contractors only after the recommendations made by concerned Ward Councillor, Deputy Mayor and Mayor, is arbitrary which shows the vested interest of the respondent authorities. The said decision will give rise to corruption which is primarily for personal pecuniary gain of decision makers and the concerned authorities. Though the work orders were issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.4, however, the Ward Councillor of Ward No. 15 was unnecessarily harassing it and when the petitioner did not please him, a frivolous complaint was made by him, though there was no issue regarding quality of the work executed by the petitioner. The said agreement was executed by the respondent No.4 whereas the Engineer-in-Charge, on verification of the work, entered the details of the work in the measurement book. The said work can be inspected any time by the respondent No.4. The said agreement was executed by the respondent No.4 whereas the Engineer-in-Charge, on verification of the work, entered the details of the work in the measurement book. The said work can be inspected any time by the respondent No.4. However, the proposal passed in the 6th Board meeting of the Adityapur Municipal Corporation held on 23.01.2019 to the extent that on completion of development works, a certificate of satisfaction of the concerned Ward Councillor regarding execution of the work has to be mandatorily submitted by the contractor, is wholly illegal, as the same is only perpetuating corruption. Moreover, this proposal has been passed after execution of the said work and as such the same is not applicable to the petitioner. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that the Ward Councillor of Ward No. 15 of Adityapur Municipal Corporation, namely, Sri Nathuni Singh made complaint before the Municipal Board, Adityapur Municipal Corporation in its meeting held on 23.01.2019 alleging that the proprietor of the petitioner misbehaved with him. Thereafter, the Board of Executive, Adityapur Municipal Corporation took decision to debar the petitioner from participating in future tenders to be floated by the Corporation. In view of the said decision, the respondent No.4 issued show cause notice to the petitioner and vide letter No. 208 dated 25.01.2019, the petitioner was debarred from participating in future tenders to be floated by the Corporation. The Adityapur Municipal Corporation had earlier prepared a proposal that payment of bills submitted by the contractors would be made only after recommendation of the concerned Ward Councillor. In the 6th Board Meeting held on 23.01.2019 presided over by the Mayor, Adityapur Municipal Corporation, a decision was taken at Sl. No. 5(2) that on completion of the development works, the certificate of satisfactory work obtained from the concerned Ward Councillor would have to be submitted to the office of Adityapur Municipal Corporation, otherwise no claim of the contractors would be entertained. In the 7th Board Meeting held on 27.08.2019 presided over by the Mayor, Adityapur Municipal Corporation, a decision was taken at Sl. No. 10.28 that payment of bills submitted by the contractors would be made only after recommendations of the concerned Ward Councillor, Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Corporation. The Board also took a decision at Sl. In the 7th Board Meeting held on 27.08.2019 presided over by the Mayor, Adityapur Municipal Corporation, a decision was taken at Sl. No. 10.28 that payment of bills submitted by the contractors would be made only after recommendations of the concerned Ward Councillor, Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Corporation. The Board also took a decision at Sl. No. 10.29 that those contractors, who were not completing the allotted work for a long period or whose work and behaviour were not found satisfactory, would be debarred from future tenders and their earnest money as well as security deposit would be forfeited. The said proposal was unanimously passed by the Members of the Board, Adityapur Municipal Corporation in the 7th Board Meeting held on 27.08.2019 to maintain transparency and for welfare of public. The said decision was not taken for any particular person, rather the same is a general decision. Moreover, Adityapur Municipal Corporation has already paid a sum of Rs.10,46,005/- and Rs.10,35,388/- to the petitioner and has presently constituted a three-member-committee vide memo No. 796 dated 18.02.2020 to inquire into the complaint dated 08.01.2020 made by Shri Nathuni Singh, Ward Councillor of Ward No.15 demanding enquiry of the work done by the petitioner and also in view of letter No. 2157 dated 03.12.2019 issued by the Deputy Director, State Urban Development Authority regarding payment of bills to the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition seeks direction to the respondents to make payment of the outstanding dues for executing the said work claiming that the same has already been completed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and the construction sites have also been handed over to the respondents. 6. The thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-Corporation in the 7th Board Meeting held on 27.08.2019 unilaterally decided that no payment would be made to the contractors, until a recommendation is made by concerned Ward Councillor, Mayor and Deputy Mayor. It has been contended that the said condition for release of payment to the contractors is contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation. It has been contended that the said condition for release of payment to the contractors is contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to Clause 7 & 8 of the Conditions of Contract stipulated in both agreements which read as under:- “Clause 7:- A bill shall be submitted by the contractor each month or before the date fixed by the Engineer-in-Charge for all work executed in the previous months and the Engineer-in-Charge or his subordinate shall take the requisite measurement for the purpose of having the same verified and the claim as far as admissible, adjusted, if possible, before the expiry of the days from the presentation of the bill. If the contractor does not submit the bill within the time fixed as aforesaid, the Engineer-in-Charge or his subordinate shall measure up the said work in the presence of the contractor whose counter signature on the measurement list will be sufficient warrant and the Engineer-in-Charge or his subordinate shall prepare a bill from such list which shall be binding to the contractor in all respects. Provided that, if any balance of the 10% security is outstanding from each such payment shall be deducted so much not exceeding 5% may be necessary to make up the balance of the security. All such intermediate payment to the contractor shall be regarded as payments by way of advance against the final payments only and not as payments for work actually done and completed and shall not preside the reputing of bad, unsound and imperfect or unskilled work to be removed and taken away and reconstructed or recreated be considered as an admission of due performance of the contractor, or any part thereof in any respect, or the actual of any claim nor shall it conclude, determine of affect in any way the powers of the Engineer-in-Charge under these conditions or any of them as so the final settlement or adjustment of the accounts or in any other way vary or affect the contract. Clause 8:- The final bill shall be prepared by the Officer of the Public Works Department in accordance with the rules of the department in the presence of the contractor within the month of the date fixed for completion of the work.” 7. Clause 8:- The final bill shall be prepared by the Officer of the Public Works Department in accordance with the rules of the department in the presence of the contractor within the month of the date fixed for completion of the work.” 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has refuted the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that in the 6th Board Meeting dated 23.01.2019 presided over by the Mayor, Adityapur Municipal Corporation, it was decided at Sl. No. 5(2) of the proposals that on completion of the development works, the certificate of satisfactory work obtained from the concerned Ward Councillor would have to be submitted to the office, otherwise no claim would be entertained. In the 7th Board Meeting dated 27.08.2019, it was further decided at Sl. No. 10.28 of the proposals that payment of bills submitted by the contractor would be made only after getting recommendations from the concerned Ward Councillor, Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Corporation. The said decisions have been taken to maintain transparency in the work which are also beneficial for the public. 8. This Court finds that the said decisions in the 6th and 7th Board Meetings of the respondent-Corporation for release of payment to the contractors have been taken after execution of the agreement for the said work between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation in which no such condition was stipulated. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have also failed to bring on record any relevant law in vogue at the time of execution of the agreement for the said work making it mandatory for the contractor to get a certificate of satisfactory completion of the work from the concerned Ward Councillor/Mayor/Deputy Mayor. Moreover, the said respondents have not controverted the factual claim of the petitioner that the work was completed within specified time and the respondents took over the site without any demur or objection. The petitioner had also submitted the final bills to the respondent authorities after verification by the Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and Special Officer of the Adityapur Municipal Corporation. Apart from that, the only allegation made against the petitioner by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is that it had misbehaved with the Ward Councillor of Ward No. 15, Adityapur Municipal Corporation for which a proceeding for its blacklisting is going on. Apart from that, the only allegation made against the petitioner by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is that it had misbehaved with the Ward Councillor of Ward No. 15, Adityapur Municipal Corporation for which a proceeding for its blacklisting is going on. The said respondents in their counter affidavit have not pointed out any defect in the work done by the petitioner. Even the work in question was already completed by the petitioner well within the stipulated time i.e. 17.12.2018 before the 6th Board’s Meeting held on 23.01.2019 wherein it was decided that a certificate of satisfactory work would to be obtained from the concerned Ward Councillor. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the petitioner’s claim for release of the due amount relating to construction of Samudayik Toilets in Ward No. 12 (old) / 14 (new) as well as in Ward No. 13(old)/ 15(new), both under Municipal Corporation, Adityapur ignoring the proposals passed in the 6th and 7th Board’s Meetings whereby the submission of certificate for satisfactory completion of work has been made mandatory for making payment to the contractors. If the respondent No.3 finds that the petitioner is entitled to get balance payment for the work in question, the same shall be released in its favour. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondent No.3 within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.